![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Under Construction
May. 16th, 2009 04:07 pmA piece in the New York Times about how Republicans are preparing to oppose any nominee Mr. Obama brings forward to replace Mr. Souter.
Simultaneously the saddest and most unintentionally funny passage:
Which is to say, Ms. Sotomayor is a strict constructionist who's read the Ninth Amendment, and they haven't.
Just to remind everyone, here's the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution in full:
Or, in more colorful terms: "Dear Literalists: We're not going to put every right the people have into the black letter text of the constitution. That doesn't mean they don't have those rights, though. Drop dead. Love, The Founders."
In other words, the fundamental bankruptcy of original intent -- that is, interpreting the Constitution solely as the Founders would have understood it -- is this:
What if the original intent of the Founders was that the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted in light of "original intent"?
And as Exhibit A, I would point you squarely at the Ninth Amendment.
I know I'm not the target audience, but if the rap against Ms. Sotomayor is that she's read and understood the Constitution in full, while her critics have not... Well, more power to her.
More importantly, though, the fact that opponents are gathering ammunition now instead of waiting and judging any given nominee on the merits is about as close to the definition of "prejudicial" as I can think of.
Simultaneously the saddest and most unintentionally funny passage:
"If (Obama) nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of being “willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”"
Which is to say, Ms. Sotomayor is a strict constructionist who's read the Ninth Amendment, and they haven't.
Just to remind everyone, here's the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution in full:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Or, in more colorful terms: "Dear Literalists: We're not going to put every right the people have into the black letter text of the constitution. That doesn't mean they don't have those rights, though. Drop dead. Love, The Founders."
In other words, the fundamental bankruptcy of original intent -- that is, interpreting the Constitution solely as the Founders would have understood it -- is this:
What if the original intent of the Founders was that the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted in light of "original intent"?
And as Exhibit A, I would point you squarely at the Ninth Amendment.
I know I'm not the target audience, but if the rap against Ms. Sotomayor is that she's read and understood the Constitution in full, while her critics have not... Well, more power to her.
More importantly, though, the fact that opponents are gathering ammunition now instead of waiting and judging any given nominee on the merits is about as close to the definition of "prejudicial" as I can think of.
