Not when they are justifying violations of our rights based on “public good” or “public safety” or any other “interest balancing” theory.
You must admit that “they can say what the law is unless I disagree with their interpretation” is not really a statement of principle. but instead a statement of personal supremacy.
Has a textualist on SCOTUS ever come down against any of the three interest balancing theories? Or did they, instead, apply them?
Not knowing all of the comments made in every case by every justice dealing with same I can’t say.
What I do know is that No where in our constitution is such an approach outlined or allowed.
1 Like
Then answer for yourself.
JayJay: “Because if the government wants to overthrow you, they will and guns won’t stop them.”
I answered you already. Many posts up.
Do you think doing so is actionable in any way? Can they be charged with “obstruction of justice” for deliberately ruling against the Constitution for political advantage?
What makes you the arbiter of the constitution?
No, unfortunately they are appointed for life and cannot be removed from the bench except through impeachment and only then under extreme circumstances.
They would actually have to violate the law in some very egregious way to even be called to task by the bar associations going after their licenses.
And not for a lack of trying, either. The US military dropped more ordinance on the relatively small countries of North and South Vietnam than it did on Germany and Japan during World War II. And still the VC kept coming back with more men, more support, and more weaponry.
Plus I don’t think they understand that the US military is not going to stay together if this scenario ever came to pass. Entire divisions would desert and join the other side. With their equipment.
