[brlug-poly] Constructionist or Interpretationalist

[Doug Riddle]

Here is a timely political question:

What type of jurists do we need on the supreme court?

The constructionists/origininalists want to see
jurists that try to abide by the framer's intent,
meaning that the constitution, and its ammendments,
should be viewed in the light of what the authors of
the constitution and the authors of the ammendements
meant to accomplish when they penned and ratified the
constitution and subsequent ammendments.  By this they
intend to leave the creation of laws and modification
of the constitution with the congress and the body of
the electorate.

Interpretationalist seem to think that the ammendment
process is too slow to adapt to societal needs and
that the judges should act as mediators between an
increasingly divisive congress and the sociatal sheep,
the helpless, hapless masses of non-voting sheep.

The Louisiana statewide election of October the 15th,
2005, had a 13% turnout.  13 people out of a hundred
showed up to direct their government on how to run
their business and spend their money.

As sad a state of affairs as that is, it still beats
the snot out of having nine people in robes in
Washington DC tell two branches of governemnt what
laws to write.

If you want justice, bring your cause to the people. 
There is a reason a jury of your peers can vacate a
law.  Your peers can tell justice and a law's intent
from the letter of the law.  However, when a jury does
that, it is a one time only event.  When a Jurist does
it, it is precedent, and becomes codified.

A jury of your peers elected the people that wrote the
laws, and can, in certain circumstances, over-ride
them on a case-by-case basis.  A Jurist should never
be allowed to second-guess an elected body.

An example from real life.  A woman is beaten by her
husband repeatedly for years.  Their son grows to be
about thirteen and dad starts in on him.  Mom tries to
defend him and dad knocks mom out; son shoots dad
twelve times.  The prosecution claims that since son
had to stop and find the box of bullets and reload the
revolver it constitutes second degree murder, a crime
of passion, rather than manslaughter, a fit of
reaction and anger, and certainly not an attempt to
protect his mother because trace evidence indicates he
searched for the bullets, reloaded the pistol, and
emptied into dear old dad again before checking to see
whether or not mom was OK.

The defense case is pretty weak.  A lot of people who
should have come forward a long time ago testified
about the years of abuse.  Neither mom or son remember
a blessed thing about the death of dear old dad.  Mom
was out cold, and son doesn't remember coming home
from school that day.

The prosecution wants junior tried as an adult, and
given the gravity of the case, it is.  The prosecution
wants junior to get twenty to life.  After all Mr.
District Attorney has designs on political office, and
a tough-on-crime record would help.

The jury of registered voters vacates the law and
finds junior innocent of all charges.  A jury can do
that.  A jurist, or judge, cannot.

A jurist can vacate a law by declaring it
unconstitutional, and they need scant reason for doing
so, but they cannot vacate a law in the way a jury
can.

A jury can let one person go because they perceive the
letter of the law in a single case being applied in a
fashion contrary to the intent of a law.

A jurist can sweep away a law because they perceive
the intent of a law being contrary to their views of
law.

So, I ask again, what sort of supreme court justice
should we hope for?



Warmest Regards,

Doug Riddle
http://www.dougriddle.com
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
 - Ambrose Bierce