Originalists or textualists like Scalia and Thomas interpret the law as the founders wrote it.
The left interprets the law how they believe it should be intended in modern times or as you put it, "the intent of the law".
We want the law to be interpreted as written. For example 2A, "shall not be infringed". Instead we have commies trying to interpret the "spirit of the law" which results in them stepping all over our rights.
The Left Justices arrives at a pre-determined judgement (pro-choice) and searches for parts of the law that justifies their decision. They don't care about the "intent of the law" in these type of political cases. Their reasoning is from from the bottom up, not top down.
You're correct about everything except for me having it backwards.
The Constitution's intent was made plain by the wording. There is no ambiguity.
The laws that have been created since, billions of pages of them, were written deliberately to be ambiguous so that the intent is hidden, and the crafty little wordsmiths can twist its meaning.
We are discussing two different things, and that's one of the legal slight of hands they pull to keep us divided.
You have it backwards.
Originalists or textualists like Scalia and Thomas interpret the law as the founders wrote it.
The left interprets the law how they believe it should be intended in modern times or as you put it, "the intent of the law".
We want the law to be interpreted as written. For example 2A, "shall not be infringed". Instead we have commies trying to interpret the "spirit of the law" which results in them stepping all over our rights.
The Left Justices arrives at a pre-determined judgement (pro-choice) and searches for parts of the law that justifies their decision. They don't care about the "intent of the law" in these type of political cases. Their reasoning is from from the bottom up, not top down.
You're correct about everything except for me having it backwards.
The Constitution's intent was made plain by the wording. There is no ambiguity.
The laws that have been created since, billions of pages of them, were written deliberately to be ambiguous so that the intent is hidden, and the crafty little wordsmiths can twist its meaning.
We are discussing two different things, and that's one of the legal slight of hands they pull to keep us divided.
I suggest this was intentional.