From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Constitutional Interpretation (was Re: Pro-Choice)
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:09:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

> In article <emPkPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
> Winemiller) writes:
> >rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
> >
> >> In article <TqgFPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Ch
> >> Winemiller) writes:
> >> >rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <63s9oB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
> >> >> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> >> >There can be no requirement for justices to be personally "a-political"; 
> >> >is unrealistic, and, as private citizens, they have a right to be
> >> >politically active.  However, _when they sit as judges in active court_,
> >> >they should set aside the personal political cloak, and don the cloak of
> >> >"court justice", deciding what the laws mean (as they were intended), and
> >> >applying them to the situations at hand.  I think this can be possible.
> >> >Other professionals (doctors, psychologists,..) set aside "personal" issu
> >> >when they step into their offices; why not justices?
> >> 
> >> 	Well, I don't buy that line of reasoning. "Other professionals" barely
> >> equates with "Supreme Court Justice". And, those others are certainly sway
> >> by bias... we all are, like it or not.
> >
> >Those professionals don't just "invent" their way along their jobs.  Doctors
> >and psych's, for example, put a distance between themselves and their
> >patients in order to bring as much objectivity as possible to their work. 
> >They also act according to what are the known facts upon which their
> >professions are based (e.g., biological facts).  I expect SC justices to
> >bring the same professional objectivity to their work.
> 
> 	Well, I strongly suggest you read up on how doctors and psych's
> determine treatment methods.

Hopefully, as they "experiment" subjectively (which is kinda what you've
implied), they are actually trying to follow up on newly discovered "facts"
(i.e. theories which seem to have been proven true by scientific
observation).  Since I raised the analogy of doctors, I'll try to complete
my analogy (though it may get a bit shaky).  A doctor searches the journals
for new scientific discoveries --- i.e. for new non-subjective, non-personal
bases upon which to make decisions about diagnoses and treatments.  The new
scientific discoveries are analogous to newly-passed laws (including
Constitutional amendments).  A judge then makes decisions about how to apply
the new "discoveries" (laws, amendments) to situations at hand.

> >> 	Bork's the only S.C. Justice that ever followed "original intent"?
> >
> >Of course not.  But a majority of SC justices since about the 30's have
> >rejected this principle.
> 
> 	Verbalized same?

In some cases, I think so---although I may be thinking of comments by law
professors influential in the field of constitutional interpretation.  I
suspect SC justices might have verbalized what they _do_ believe rather than
verbalizing the fact that their belief constitutes a rejection of original
intent as a guiding principle.

> >Do you now see how original intent works?  The purpose is to interpret the
> >existing text of the Constitution (which includes its amendments of course)
> >according to the intent of the text, as determined by its historical
> >context.
...
> 
> 	Now I see how original intent works. Thanks. Original intent:
> Article 14, section 2: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to
> all Priveleges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> Article 3, section 2: (After appointing jurisdiction of the S.C.): "In
> all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have 
> appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions,
> and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Yes?  I fail to see your point.

> >> 	Prove in any way that a fetus was protected by the Constitution.
> >
> >I'm not arguing in the "fetus/baby" debate; I'm arguing about principles for
> >Constitutional interpretation.
> 
> 	Sorry, I was assuming you were, having checked the subject line.

I've changed it.  I frequently forget to do so when the subject matter
changes.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil