APA?
I don’t disagree much. It’s always nice when the courts correct the drift away from the document.
administrative procedures act
stare decisis for the executive
1 Like
If highly educated and respectable men can’t agree on the meaning of holy texts, as has been going on for millennia, I’m not sure why we’re so dumbfounded the same phenomenon happens with a constitution, laws, and regulations written by men.
1 Like
Everything else being equal (age, education, intelligence, etc) two duplicate judges can arrive at different conclusions based on how they view constitutional interpretation. I.e an originalist vs. a textualist.
Not so. Not all of the 6 are originalists or textualist. There is a mix.
Which one are the 3?
originalists and textualists are very close in philosophy. Its the left end that’s more interested in outcomes than inputs.
The constitution is relatively short, and silent about a lot of things (which is ideal I think). But the result is a good amount of gray area. Or at least enough gray area for highly educated and respectable people to disagree about those gray areas. That’s why we need a scotus. Or why nobody can offer a preferable alternative (imo).
ETA: yes, judges do find ways to manufacture gray areas. Both “sides” have done that, but the left justices more so. Substantive due process, for example, is a sham. I won’t even try to defend that artifice.
1 Like
We could turn the whole mess over to ChatGPT 
2 Likes
Hahaha. You know what, at this point, why the hell not.
All of this stuff is about control. When the government provides and decides about everything we have, they can take away anything we have to keep us in line. And there’s nothing we can do about it.
There is no freedom here, there is permission.
2 Likes
This article tells a story between the lines.
Notice the part about Navaho water rights.
Is it? Read Roberts.
In today’s NY Times, there is a big article about Clarence Thomas. "As he argued from the bench in his concurrence to the recent decision striking down affirmative action, the court should be “focusing on individuals as individuals,” rather than on the view that Americans are “all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”
Where is any of that in the Constitution? We have been duped.
Roberts is a politician in a dress.
Which part are you looking for in the constitution?
The part about individuals…or the part that claims "Americans are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”?
1 Like
In the Bill of Rights.
2 Likes
Are not they all? Kind of the point of the thread.
1 Like
Sure, as long as conservatives get to do the RHLF.
No, I don’t think so.
And that takes us right back to the bias problem.
It’s almost like imperfect humans design imperfect systems and institutions.
1 Like
