fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ca/supreme_court_ratings/supreme_court_update
Well, it all makes sense now.
Well, it all makes sense now.
Rasmussen: Just 29% of Obama supporters believe SCOTUS should rule via Constitution
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
These results aren't surprising considering the question that was asked:
"Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what's written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?"
As if the two choices are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, grouping "legal precedents" together with "what's written in the Constitution" is another fallacy. Would any of you group the precedent of Roe v. Wade with "what's in the Constitution"? I thought not.
The word "fairness" is certainly subjective, but what about "justice"? Are we to assume, based on this question, that the concept of justice is somehow outside of the realm of the Constitution? And what do the fifth through eighth amendments address, if not fairness?
So the poll is deeply flawed because the question is deeply flawed.
Finally, the differences between Republicans and Democrats can at least partially be explained by the fact that most Republicans have had the term "strict constructionist" drilled into the brains for years, despite the fact that few of them even know what it really means and even fewer judges actually practice it. Even Scalia, the most right-wing of the right-wing authoritarian side of the bench, bristles at the term. He prefers the to be called an "Originalist", which is derived from "original intent". I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of the philosophy, but I will say that it can be used just as easily to argue for a pre-determined (activist) outcome as any other philosophy. In short, it is no more an objective or desirable approach than many others.
"Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what's written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?"
As if the two choices are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, grouping "legal precedents" together with "what's written in the Constitution" is another fallacy. Would any of you group the precedent of Roe v. Wade with "what's in the Constitution"? I thought not.
The word "fairness" is certainly subjective, but what about "justice"? Are we to assume, based on this question, that the concept of justice is somehow outside of the realm of the Constitution? And what do the fifth through eighth amendments address, if not fairness?
So the poll is deeply flawed because the question is deeply flawed.
Finally, the differences between Republicans and Democrats can at least partially be explained by the fact that most Republicans have had the term "strict constructionist" drilled into the brains for years, despite the fact that few of them even know what it really means and even fewer judges actually practice it. Even Scalia, the most right-wing of the right-wing authoritarian side of the bench, bristles at the term. He prefers the to be called an "Originalist", which is derived from "original intent". I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of the philosophy, but I will say that it can be used just as easily to argue for a pre-determined (activist) outcome as any other philosophy. In short, it is no more an objective or desirable approach than many others.