RBG dead at 87

[iris lilies]

I got the impression that she was trying to point out that conservatives don’t have a stranglehold on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the constitution. Conservatives use the word constitutionalist as a means of trying to paint progressives as unamerican.

yes, perhaps that is her point.

But “Liberal” as it apoears in this book title doesn’t always mean progressive or in sync with leftIe goals. My favorite political talker these days is a “classical liberal “as he likes to call himself and he wont be voting for Biden and further left ideas.

But this book is a complicated legal tome and I certainly will not be reading it and I doubt if frugal-one has read it either. So who knows what point of view it espouses, but I think there’s a pretty good chance all of us could read it and come up with a different summary of whether it is “liberal “or “conservative “since those are oversimplifications.

In summary, when I use the word constitutionalist I mean someone who will be more conservative in interpretation. Rather than assuming the constitution allows X the interpretation will be the constitution does not allow X.

Like the ACA mandatory requirement to buy a consumer product is a “tax” and therefore allowed in the constitution.

Still shaking my head over that one, John Roberts.

And, speaking of constitutionality: last week was our annual constitution day folks! What did you do for it? Ha ha I didn’t even know about until somebody sent me email and then I watched a panel discussion on free speech.

[frugal-one]

yes, perhaps that is her point.

But “Liberal” as it apoears in this book title doesn’t always mean progressive or in sync with leftIe goals. My favorite political talker these days is a “classical liberal “as he likes to call himself and he wont be voting for Biden and further left ideas.

But this book is a complicated legal tome and I certainly will not be reading it and I doubt if frugal-one has read it either. So who knows what point of view it espouses, but I think there’s a pretty good chance all of us could read it and come up with a different summary of whether it is “liberal “or “conservative “since those are oversimplifications.

In summary, when I use the word constitutionalist I mean someone who will be more conservative in interpretation. Rather than assuming the constitution allows X the interpretation will be the constitution does not allow X.

Like the ACA mandatory requirement to buy a consumer product is a “tax” and therefore allowed in the constitution.

Still shaking my head over that one, John Roberts.

And, speaking of constitutionality: last week was our annual constitution day folks! What did you do for it? Ha ha I didn’t even know about until somebody sent me email and then I watched a panel discussion on free speech.

I had no point. I was just trying to figure out what you meant. I looked up the verbage you used and that is what came up.

I thought the conservative approach was to have as few laws/rules as possible but what you just espoused does not reflect that. Not trying to be snarky but to understand.

[jp1]

In summary, when I use the word constitutionalist I mean someone who will be more conservative in interpretation. Rather than assuming the constitution allows X the interpretation will be the constitution does not allow X.

Like the ACA mandatory requirement to buy a consumer product is a “tax” and therefore allowed in the constitution.

Still shaking my head over that one, John Roberts.

While I agree with you regarding that interpretation for the ACA in that particular case, not to mention how absurdly broad the commerce clause has been defined over the centuries, I don't generally think that non-conservative legal opinions of what the constitution says are by definition not constitutional. They are simply different legal opinions made by different people with different backgrounds or educations or whatever that cause them to reach different conclusions. After all, if the constitution was so straightforward that anyone could accurately know what it says regarding any particular legal disagreement we wouldn't need a supreme court to make those decisions. In fact why would there even be legal disputes at that point since everyone would "just know" what the constitution said. Yet even as wise and educated as they are the justices rarely come to the same conclusion. Very few of their decisions are unanimous. So it just doesn't seem right or fair to claim the conservative viewpoint as the "constitutional" viewpoint. I could just as easily state that I with my modern political liberal leanings is the constitutionalist.

[iris lilies]

I had no point. I was just trying to figure out what you meant. I looked up the verbage you used and that is what came up.

I thought the conservative approach was to have as few laws/rules as possible but what you just espoused does not reflect that. Not trying to be snarky but to understand.

We are talking about Supreme Court justices.

Supreme court justices do not make laws.

They interpret the constitution to approve or deny existing laws and regulations. A justice who carries out narrow interpretation of the constitution, a constitutionalist justice as I use the term, could still agree that ten laws he was ruling on that day were consistent with constitutional authority.

It is not a matter of “how many” it is about permissions granted by the U.S. constitution. On any given day, the departed Conservative Justice Scalia could decide many more laws broughT before him were A-Ok than progressive Justice Ginsberg on that same day. It is not a numbers game.

My personal preference for governance is fewer laws, but that burden is more on legislative bodies than on the Supremes, IMHO.

[iris lilies]

If jp1 and etc want to argue over label definitions, be my guest. I use the term “constitutionalist” to mean narrow interpreter of the constitution.

But OF COURSE ya’ll want to think your side are “constitutionalists” too! Go ahead. It’s cute. Label yourselves however you want. Maybe I will label myself “principle dancer with NYC Ballet” and that will make me feel better about the 4 lbs
i have gained because hey, i can still dance.

[jp1]

There's nothing more "constitutional" about choosing to interpret the constitution as giving the government only the bare minimal powers that the words used in the constitution explain. Rational people can take different stances. For instance if one defines sex as exclusively one's gender and nothing else related to that then they might reach a different decision in cases such as the recent one including protections for LGBT people in the workplace than one would if one defines sex as anything affected by the fact of one's gender. In the latter viewpoint the fact that people who like to sleep with men are treated differently depending on whether they themself are a male or female the logical conclusion would be that, yes, that would be sex discrimination. Someone with the former viewpoint that sex exclusively means one's gender would reach the opposite decision because discriminating against gay people isn't because of their gender, but only an issue of the gender of the people they prefer to sleep with and therefore the complainant's gender is not itself being discriminated against.

[bae]

Someone with the former viewpoint that sex exclusively means one's gender would reach the opposite decision because discriminating against gay people isn't because of their gender, but only an issue of the gender of the people they prefer to sleep with and therefore the complainant's gender is not itself being discriminated against.

And then there's the complexity of intersex folks...

[Alan]

So it just doesn't seem right or fair to claim the conservative viewpoint as the "constitutional" viewpoint. I could just as easily state that I with my modern political liberal leanings is the constitutionalist.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. The constitution provides a check on government authority and modern political liberal leanings seems to require more government authority. If modern liberals were half the constitutionalists that classical liberals are/were, there'd never have been an ACA.

I believe modern conservatives are overall much closer to the classical liberal mindset than the modern liberal could ever be. That's why I prefer to refer to you guys as progressives since the term liberal doesn't seem to apply no matter how successful you've been at usurping the name.

[early morning]

... the term liberal doesn't seem to apply no matter how successful you've been at usurping the name.

How funny; I've always considered myself a progressive - seems to me the term "liberal" has been usurped by CONSERVATIVES, to be used as a pejorative for anyone in disagreement with their fossilized viewpoints. Like Rush et-al calling Hillary a "liberal" - that always gives me a chuckle.

I enjoy this guy's website and take on things - of course YMMV.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-is-a-liberal/

[ApatheticNoMore]

It's the year 2020, almost the only people besides conservatives that even ever use the term liberal prefix a neo in front of it at all times, and they don't like it.