Why did some Supreme Court Judge nominees-under oath- affirm that they would follow stare decisis- then once on the court, they overturn stare decisis? Did they think the overturning Dred Scott decision - as giving them excusable permission to overturn Dobbs, etc.?
Textualism gets you the laws the people passed. If the people wish to revisit the laws, they're free to do so. A random lawyer shouldn't be able to overrule the people.
@@razr6986 textualism claims to be simplistic, but it’s a paradox. If the written word was so clear, why would a court case ever arise? To examine written words independent of the values that informed them, the purpose that shaped them, and the consequences that result from them is to essentially replace the understanding of lawfulness with the ability to read a dictionary.
The first Amendment needs to be updated (urgh) but only in its language to define "speech" in this day of electronic recording and distribution. The founding fathers didn't even have microphones. We know this problem. It is of our age when offensive, damaging and false information is being used to spread disinformation rapidly.. Don't we have a committee working on exactly this? Where is the violation? Not in the speech itself itself, but in the propagation and distribution of it,.
I read Camus's The Plague, as an 18-year-old, & do so every year since then. Impressed my view of life.
Why did some Supreme Court Judge nominees-under oath- affirm that they would follow stare decisis- then once on the court, they overturn stare decisis?
Did they think the overturning Dred Scott decision - as giving them excusable permission to overturn Dobbs, etc.?
He seems extraordinary because he is so brilliantly reasonable.
But also-what was the question again?
Justice Breyer has sold me on pragmatism. I was already leaning that way, but now I'm sold. Textualism gets you 1800s laws revived
Textualism gets you the laws the people passed. If the people wish to revisit the laws, they're free to do so. A random lawyer shouldn't be able to overrule the people.
@@razr6986 textualism claims to be simplistic, but it’s a paradox. If the written word was so clear, why would a court case ever arise? To examine written words independent of the values that informed them, the purpose that shaped them, and the consequences that result from them is to essentially replace the understanding of lawfulness with the ability to read a dictionary.
Thank you, Justice Breyer.
The first Amendment needs to be updated (urgh) but only in its language to define "speech" in this day of electronic recording and distribution. The founding fathers didn't even have microphones. We know this problem. It is of our age when offensive, damaging and false information is being used to spread disinformation rapidly.. Don't we have a committee working on exactly this? Where is the violation? Not in the speech itself itself, but in the propagation and distribution of it,.
What good is reading the Constitution if the Supreme Court will not abide by it