Continuously restating that courts are not political does not magically make them non-political
Laws, and the context of laws, do not speak in "clear language," we hear them through OUR OWN EARS - the voice we hear is filtered through our own judgment (informed by our politics)
Laws, and the context of laws, do not speak in "clear language," we hear them through OUR OWN EARS - the voice we hear is filtered through our own judgment (informed by our politics)
In other words, what @BenSasse is saying is absurd to me
The best way to explain this....remember when you were a kid and played the "telephone game?"
If we all read the same text, we will all see what that text means as DIFFERENT....the reasons for those little differences are based in the differences b/w us & who we are
If we all read the same text, we will all see what that text means as DIFFERENT....the reasons for those little differences are based in the differences b/w us & who we are
The idea that there is ONE specific meaning that can be discerned and is objectively arrived at IS A POLITICAL ACT...it is saying might = right (my view of law is the objectively correct view)...it is egotism more than reality
It is like the real life Rashoman problem, every narrator thinks their perspective is the "objectively" correct one and that all other interpretations are "activist"
Originalism IS POLITICS
Originalism IS POLITICS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
