Here's the problem as I see it with the court. We have radical judges that disregard the Constitution.
Genuine question: Can you provide a specific instance of a Judge explicitly disregarding the Constitution?
They don't want to interpret the law, they want to legislate from the bench. They consider things like international law in their opinions.
I’d need to know more about the specific instances you are concerned with; it’s possibly relevant to consider things like International law if such law is part of a treaty that the U.S. has ratified; see of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution for more on this.
Also note that the Constitution imposes few restrictions on the Supreme Court and how it is to interpret laws.
I also find it amusing to suggest that using international law is, somehow, abhorrent, when so much of our legal system and jurisprudence is based on English common law and has been adopted by the early Court.
The role of the court is pretty clear but like everything it's now been politicized up the ass (mostly by Democrats).
If it’s pretty clear, perhaps you could tell us, in your own words, what it is?
As for politicization, the Court has, sadly, been politicized and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are. No better proof of that exists than the flip-flopping that Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and company are now engaged in: holding up the Garland nomination because of the upcoming election was their “sacred duty” then, so the “People” could get a say; now, with an election even closer, the “People” can go fuck themselves and the Senators wants to fulfill their “sacred duty” and confirm the nominee. What’s the difference? Who made the nomination. What was the deciding factor?
Politics.
There's a lot I could say on this topic but I'm not sure this is the place or if I would even want to. In simple terms, I want originalist judges on the court which in my opinion is the only thing that makes sense. I have no idea why someone would want international law or modern societal interpretations guiding decisions. To me it's insane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Again, international law may be relevant to the case at hand. Remember the Court also has original jurisdiction in cases arising out of “maritime jurisdiction” which, under an Originalist interpretation, involves things the law of the High Seas, which was basically the international law of its day.
As for desire for originalism, you’ll need to be more specific. For example, is it originalism, to you, to say that the 6th Amendment affords a Defendant the right to Counsel but doesn’t
explicitly require that one must be provided by the Court to defendants who cannot afford one, and the Court “invented” that right in
Gideon v. Wainwright?
Do you believe it is appropriate for the Courts to decide that, say, the Fourth Amendment against searches and seizures applies to computers and data residing inside a computer by arguing that “papers and effects” applies to digital documents today just as it did to actual paper documents back in the day even though the Founders couldn’t imagine a computer or a “digital document”?
Do you believe that the originalist interpretation of the “full faith and credit” clause requires a State that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage to accept, as married, a gay couple that was married in a State they does?
Would you favor disbanding the Air Force because, under an originalist reading of the Constitution, Congress was only empowered to create the Army and Navy? If not, why not?
I’m not trying to challenge you; I too believe that Originalism has its place in our jurisprudence and would prefer to avoid judges expanding the scope of the Constitution too much, regardless of whether they do so in a direction I approve or disapprove. However, strict originalism has its own issues and they’re serious.
The beauty of our Constitution is it’s succinctness. It doesn’t focus too much on issues of a particular time period (references to the importation of slaves aside and 1808 aside) but focuses on first principles. It’s why it has survived, relatively unaltered, for as long as it has: bevause it remains relevant.
Other countries have Constitutions spanning hundreds of pages, enumerating in excruciating detail, issues very specific to the time period in which they were written. And they’re worse for it because of that.
I’ll leave you with one last thing about originalism: the concept of judicial review itself is
nowhere to be found in the Constitution, yet the early Court adopted it. I doubt you’ll find an originalist that claims that was an activist decision by the Court. Ask yourself what that means about strict originalism.
