The right has been pushing for honest, originalist, textualist judges. They wanted to counter activist leftist judges by appointing judges that wanted to follow the law to the letter and not put personal opinions in the way.
Problem is, that fails to actually advance conservatism or limiting government. A progressive judge will happily ignore or reinterpret law as they please. But a Federalist Society judge won’t. They’ll be hesitant to upset the status quo or establish precedent.
The answer to liberal justices is to get activist conservatives, not textualists. Or a cloning vat so we can get 9 Scalia’s.
This is wrong though. Our judges except for Thomas aren't following the constitution. They are just like the leftist judges, they just have different areas where they make shit up in.
This. They stick so hard to procedure, and precendents, rather than the Constitution. They strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Just so they won't appear 'political'.
Federalist Society judges have been just as interpretationalist just on different things. Look at how they have reinterpreted the plain language of the Sherman Act which basically said no monopolies ever, into only the specified identifiers in the Act should be cared about.
The right has been pushing for honest, originalist, textualist judges. They wanted to counter activist leftist judges by appointing judges that wanted to follow the law to the letter and not put personal opinions in the way.
Problem is, that fails to actually advance conservatism or limiting government. A progressive judge will happily ignore or reinterpret law as they please. But a Federalist Society judge won’t. They’ll be hesitant to upset the status quo or establish precedent.
The answer to liberal justices is to get activist conservatives, not textualists. Or a cloning vat so we can get 9 Scalia’s.
This is wrong though. Our judges except for Thomas aren't following the constitution. They are just like the leftist judges, they just have different areas where they make shit up in.
This. They stick so hard to procedure, and precendents, rather than the Constitution. They strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Just so they won't appear 'political'.
Federalist Society judges have been just as interpretationalist just on different things. Look at how they have reinterpreted the plain language of the Sherman Act which basically said no monopolies ever, into only the specified identifiers in the Act should be cared about.