22 Jul 2014 3:11 pm
It is interesting to watch Richclem worship the Supreme Court. WHenever they disagree with his view and rule opposite to what he thinks OUGHT to have been the ruling, he goes off on how it's all a big liberal conspiracy of activist judges. When they agree, of course, they're rational minds who could never possibly be wrong.
Richclem has tied himself up into a pretzel with all this backtracking. Which goes back to the original point that the only thing which matters is if something does or doesn't conform to his preconception.
It is also worth noting that the court's decision in Citizens United is fundamentally antithetical to views of the Founders, as they did not consider corporations or businesses in their time to be legal people with any rights whatsoever. So if we are consistent with the originalist interpretative view that we ought to interpret current events in light of past views, the court is objectively wrong. Of course, RIchclem only supports "Originalism" in much the same way Antonine Scalia and conservative justices do: that is, they only use it when it's convenient while dumping the framework when they come across a contradiction of their goal.
Richclem has tied himself up into a pretzel with all this backtracking. Which goes back to the original point that the only thing which matters is if something does or doesn't conform to his preconception.
It is also worth noting that the court's decision in Citizens United is fundamentally antithetical to views of the Founders, as they did not consider corporations or businesses in their time to be legal people with any rights whatsoever. So if we are consistent with the originalist interpretative view that we ought to interpret current events in light of past views, the court is objectively wrong. Of course, RIchclem only supports "Originalism" in much the same way Antonine Scalia and conservative justices do: that is, they only use it when it's convenient while dumping the framework when they come across a contradiction of their goal.