With the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing coming, the debate over Constitutional "originalism" vs. "living constitutionalism" is heating up again. NPR put up a piece on the PR aspects of the battle.
I'm having a hard time understanding how either argument is practical. On the one hand, it is patently ridiculous to suggest that the Constitution either is or was intended to be a final document for the ages.
On the other hand, one cannot responsibly suggest that all aspects of the Constitution are subject to interpretation.
However, I don't think that that is really what anyone is suggesting. I don't think either side is really absolutist in its definition, if you get down to it. But it sure does make a good media story if we can frame it as an epic battle of clashing ideas.
Cripes, people. Have a conversation, would ya?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I think you hit the nail on the head. It isn't about the Constitution; it's about abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage... or interfering in public elections.
Their view on "originalism" vs "living constitution" will shift to support their pre-existing position.
What it comes down to is that they don't like her. Well, if they liked her, she wouldn't be a very good nominee.
Post a Comment