• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you were a Justice on the Supreme Court, which method of interpretation would you prefer?

If you were a Justice on the Supreme Court, which method of interpretation would you prefer?

  • 1. For Conservatives - Textualism

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • 2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • 3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • 4. For Conservatives - Natural Law

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • 5. For Progressives - Textualism

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 6. For Progressives - Intentionalism

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • 7. For Progressives - Pragmatist

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • 8. For Progressives - Natural Law

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Total voters
    25
L

LesGovt

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
1. For Conservatives - Textualism
2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism
3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist
4. For Conservatives - Natural Law
5. For Progressives - Textualism
6. For Progressives - Intentionalism
7. For Progressives - Pragmatist
8. For Progressives - Natural Law
 
LesGovt said:
1. For Conservatives - Textualism
2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism
3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist
4. For Conservatives - Natural Law
5. For Progressives - Textualism
6. For Progressives - Intentionalism
7. For Progressives - Pragmatist
8. For Progressives - Natural Law
Click to expand...

Sorry, my choice would be common sense.
 
original intent and the actual text.
 
MaggieD said:
Sorry, my choice would be common sense.
Click to expand...

Here are the definitions.

Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective "intent."

Intentionalist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the intentions of framers, members of proposing bodies, and ratifiers.

Pragmatist: A non-originalist who gives substantial weight to judicial precedent or the consequences of alternative interpretations, so as to sometimes favor a decision "wrong" on originalist terms because it promotes stability or in some other way promotes the public good.

Natural Law Theorist: A person who believes that higher moral law ought to trump inconsistent positive law.
 
The text, specifically

It is what is written, good or bad. (if it is bad, amend it)
 
None...the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to interpret The Constitution.
 
LesGovt said:
Here are the definitions.

Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective "intent."

Intentionalist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the intentions of framers, members of proposing bodies, and ratifiers.

Pragmatist: A non-originalist who gives substantial weight to judicial precedent or the consequences of alternative interpretations, so as to sometimes favor a decision "wrong" on originalist terms because it promotes stability or in some other way promotes the public good.

Natural Law Theorist: A person who believes that higher moral law ought to trump inconsistent positive law.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I had no idea what they meant. I would be a pragmatist, n that case.
 
MaggieD said:
Thank you! I had no idea what they meant. I would be a pragmatist, n that case.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I thought that might be the case based on your prior response.
 
radcen said:
Yes, that's why ALL decisions have been unanimous.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Decision should be unanimous.

In the words of the murdered Antonin Alito: "Stupid, but constitutional".
 
LesGovt said:
1. For Conservatives - Textualism
2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism
3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist
4. For Conservatives - Natural Law
5. For Progressives - Textualism
6. For Progressives - Intentionalism
7. For Progressives - Pragmatist
8. For Progressives - Natural Law
Click to expand...

For me, I would use research. I would start by reading the case history, researching the constitutional issues, research earlier rulings on those constitutional issues, research the arguments put forth by both sides, research the history of the case, research all precedents, and then research some more. That is the job, so I might as well do it right.
 
LesGovt said:
1. For Conservatives - Textualism
2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism
3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist
4. For Conservatives - Natural Law
5. For Progressives - Textualism
6. For Progressives - Intentionalism
7. For Progressives - Pragmatist
8. For Progressives - Natural Law
Click to expand...

Original intent
 
LesGovt said:
1. For Conservatives - Textualism
2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism
3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist
4. For Conservatives - Natural Law
5. For Progressives - Textualism
6. For Progressives - Intentionalism
7. For Progressives - Pragmatist
8. For Progressives - Natural Law
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the Constitution was worded as guarantees to men and not government given rights?

Power was placed in something above man to ensure than men should never be subject to a heavy handed government made up of men.


I guess that you are aware, given the natural law choice......................good work!
 
RetiredUSN said:
Are you aware that the Constitution was worded as guarantees to men and not government given rights?

Power was placed in something above man to ensure than men should never be subject to a heavy handed government made up of men.


I guess that you are aware, given the natural law choice......................good work!
Click to expand...

The types of interpretation came from a website, so they are not mine.
 
apdst said:
None...the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to interpret The Constitution.
Click to expand...

Didn't that ship sail some time ago? What's their role then?
 
LesGovt:

For Centrists - 70% Textualism and 30% Intentionalism and 100% Humility. Pragmatism and Natural Law are the domains of the Congress and the Executive and it is their responsibilities to craft laws which respect the constitution. If they can't do this then they must either muster the political capital to change the Constitution or restrain themselves in humility.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I just appreciate any thread on here that isn't born from a political hack, and yours offered a non biased question.
Click to expand...

Thanks and you are very welcome. I wish I had done the poll with the circles to select one, but once I figured out how to do that, I had published this one. I was interested to see how liberals and conservatives differed on this question.
 
Evilroddy said:
LesGovt:

For Centrists - 70% Textualism and 30% Intentionalism and 100% Humility. Pragmatism and Natural Law are the domains of the Congress and the Executive and it is their responsibilities to craft laws which respect the constitution. If they can't do this then they must either muster the political capital to change the Constitution or restrain themselves in humility.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much.
 
Antonin Gregory Scalia interpretation :cool:

220px-Antonin_Scalia_Official_SCOTUS_Portrait.jpg
 
Nickyjo said:
Didn't that ship sail some time ago? What's their role then?
Click to expand...

Their role is to determine if laws are constitutional. Article 3 says nothing about intrpreting The Constitution. In fact, the word "interpret" doesn't even appear in Article 3.

The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted and re-interpreted. What good is it if it can be changed that easily?
 
I'd prefer they take all available information into consideration and make a solid judgement based on all factors and perspectives.
 
apdst said:
Their role is to determine if laws are constitutional. Article 3 says nothing about intrpreting The Constitution. In fact, the word "interpret" doesn't even appear in Article 3.

The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted and re-interpreted. What good is it if it can be changed that easily?
Click to expand...

You do realize when you read this post, your brain is interpreting. It is literally impossible to read, hear or see anything and not interpret it. So what you are actually saying is the Constitution was never meant to be seen. That is a kinda really ****ing position to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom