We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Why get bogged down in technical points of the Constitution?
Mauro in USA Today: Conservatives who believe in a limited role for judges say the Supreme Court should stick to its knitting, namely interpreting the U.S. Constitution as written, and should ignore current fads here or abroad. But the counter-argument is strong. If globalization has flattened the world in terms of the economy and culture, isn't it time that our legal system also look beyond our borders? Are we so arrogant that we think we have nothing to learn from judges and lawmakers around the world who have faced the same issues we face?
No, it isn't "about time," not until we decide to totally trash our Constitution, at which point there will be no limit to the power of the judiciary. I find Mauro's piece astonishing in its arrogance. Right Wing News has the same feeling.
And a comment from Gwynnie:
Gwynnie loves that amazing piece by Mauro where he says, no, confesses, that the whole fight is about power (psst – he wants it) and has nothing to do with a rule of law:
“If globalization has flattened the world in terms of the economy and culture, isn't it time that our legal system also look beyond our borders? Are we so arrogant that we think we have nothing to learn from judges and lawmakers around the world who have faced the same issues we face?”
Gwynnie completely agrees and says, OK, let's look at others' laws.Let's start with the 1st Amendment; I mean that's completely out of line with the laws of a majority of countries.Let's be a Christian country and make sure the press acts responsibly in accordance with our standards. No, wait, . . . maybe we should follow other countries on the rights of an accused.She wonders if Mauro knows that in precious France accused criminals are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence; that would be a fascinating change, and France is sooo civilized, too. She is not as certain about stoning naughty women or cutting off criminals’ hands, but surely we can get rid of our sick tort system and make losing plaintiffs pay the costs they impose on innocent defendants (vice versa, too) the way they do in England.Oh, and what about proclaiming our senators “Lords”? England does .... [ed. Bad dog, Gwynnie; that’s going too far. Imaging the corpusculent Teddy Kennedy, Lord Chappaquiddick! (See http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm for the story)]
Let's not forget that even those who profess a belief in interpreting the Constitution literally, sometimes find exceptions when it suits their politics. Scalia's decisions on regulatory takings (e.g. Lucas) provide classic examples. Such a thing never existed in the Republic for over 100 years of jurisprudential history until Holmes came up with it in Mahon. Until that point, the Constitution was always strictly read to require an actual physical taking of property.