I agree with the article below, however, are we as a people so jaded as to resist honesty? I’m not saying Justice Scalia was dishonest, maybe just crafty with his words. To use a quote from within the article ;
“I don’t believe in strict construction, I am not a strict constructionist,” Scalia answered. “I believe legal texts should be interpreted neither strictly nor loosely, they should be interpreted reasonably.”
Justice Scalia however, was regarded as an ‘originalist’ or ‘constructionist’ and the only Justice who did not view the Constitution as a living document, meaning, it changes as our society changes. The very changes we conservatives wish to prevent. We believe the Constitution is the law-of-the-land, as is written just like the bible.
What do we on the right want from a Justice? Since we believe our rights come from our Creator, God, we don’t want the Constitution to reflect ‘government issued’ rights which do not come from God.
As God is opposed to same-sex relations, and murder (abortion), our Constitution should not make it normal. We also don’t want the Constitution to make it illegal. Send it back to the states and allow the people to choose.
Our governments were not designed as a top-down monarchy or dictatorship but a bottom-up, by the people, for the people, system of protection. With our local governments closer to the people, this is where the people’s decisions are reflected. People in California have what they feel is right, those of us in Texas something much different.
In other words, if California wishes to go against God and condone killing babies or same-sex abominations, that is their business, however, if we in Texas wish to be free from such impositions on our faith by the government we should be allowed to do so. The people then ‘vote with their feet’ to borrow words from Ronald Reagan I believe.
The article is correct, a potential Justice should not make originalism or constructionism an issue during their hearings although their actions after approval should.
There’s a long-standing argument between people who think the Constitution should be interpreted flexibly enough to allow judges to change the law, and those who think judges should be bound by what the words meant when the people of the United States agreed to them.