"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:29:15 -0500, Marty said:

That would be: "When the Court "discovers" new rights which no rational
person could believe were in the minds of those ratifying the
Constitution or applicable amendments, they have changed the document
without following the procedure called for to change it"

The bit about "no rational person" rather implies mental incompetency
does it not?

Nope. It implies rejection of the intent of those ratifying the
Constitution
or the amendment as the standard for interpreting the document. Far from
suggesting incompetence, it suggests a willful but entirely competent
desire
to claim constitutional sanction for what amounts to no more than their
own
policy judgments.


Ah, "intent", always boils down to that doesn't it? Personally, I,
perhaps stupidly, believe in the moral integrity of the men and women who
make it to the bench of the Supreme Court. If they make a decision that I
don't agree with, I am sure they are making it out of a sincere belief in
its' legality, and not because they have some nefarious intent to rewrite
the Constitution. I feel the Founding Fathers set the system up the way
they did precisely because they knew that times would change, society
would evolve and events would occur which they had no way to foresee,
hence the need for a body with the power to in effect, "guess" what they
might have done.

Hopefully they will do it in a wise and just way, and further leave any
really large changes to Constitutionally defined amendment process.

I still say, if you are going to suggest, that the Supreme Court renders
decisions based on intent that no rational person could see, most
certainly implies that those rendering the decision are in fact irrational
and thus not mentally competent.

Cheers
Martin


I wish that were true. Unfortunately, Thomas never got over his "high tech
lynching," admitting as much in recent interviews. He's got an agenda for
sure. Recent example was the Obama citizenship thing. The rest of the court
declined to hear it and the guy who was promoting it, shopped the justices
until he found Thomas.

I don't agree with Scalia, but I respect his intellect. Same for the others.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com