Kudos to Linda for "being embarrassed" for her support of the conservative justices, as well as for her positive statement about Sotomayor, who she opposed due disagreeing with her "judicial philosophy."
I would like to prompt Ms. Chavez further, however, on the very notion of "Judicial Philosophy", and whether that is something that has …
Kudos to Linda for "being embarrassed" for her support of the conservative justices, as well as for her positive statement about Sotomayor, who she opposed due disagreeing with her "judicial philosophy."
I would like to prompt Ms. Chavez further, however, on the very notion of "Judicial Philosophy", and whether that is something that has ever truly existed and if so, if it is really something to base one's support or opposition upon. You see, from my point of view, it has always struck me how frequently Originalism, or Textualism (or whatever 'ism' Republican-appointed justices have said they adhered to has brought them to decisions that happened to coincide with their world view. How wonderful it must be for them, I had always thought, that what they saw as their strict adherence to the Founders also came to confirm that the Founders believed what they believed!
I'm asking this because I have been asking myself something more acutely recently that I have been asking for 10 years, which is what it is we who lean left need to do from a political perspective in order to NOT have to find a unicorn to run for President to gain enough votes to achieve an Electoral College victory.
And I want to understand that in no small part by listening to people like Linda, and Mona, and Sarah, and Charlie. But it's a challenge for me to do so if part of the argument still includes things like "judicial philosophy", when an honest assessment should cause intelligent and reasonable people to move on.
And I think this is important for 'both sides', since today there is only one political party in place to defend the Constitution, and people like Linda and Mona--although voting for that side--clearly still find it pretty distasteful.
Kudos to Linda for "being embarrassed" for her support of the conservative justices, as well as for her positive statement about Sotomayor, who she opposed due disagreeing with her "judicial philosophy."
I would like to prompt Ms. Chavez further, however, on the very notion of "Judicial Philosophy", and whether that is something that has ever truly existed and if so, if it is really something to base one's support or opposition upon. You see, from my point of view, it has always struck me how frequently Originalism, or Textualism (or whatever 'ism' Republican-appointed justices have said they adhered to has brought them to decisions that happened to coincide with their world view. How wonderful it must be for them, I had always thought, that what they saw as their strict adherence to the Founders also came to confirm that the Founders believed what they believed!
I'm asking this because I have been asking myself something more acutely recently that I have been asking for 10 years, which is what it is we who lean left need to do from a political perspective in order to NOT have to find a unicorn to run for President to gain enough votes to achieve an Electoral College victory.
And I want to understand that in no small part by listening to people like Linda, and Mona, and Sarah, and Charlie. But it's a challenge for me to do so if part of the argument still includes things like "judicial philosophy", when an honest assessment should cause intelligent and reasonable people to move on.
And I think this is important for 'both sides', since today there is only one political party in place to defend the Constitution, and people like Linda and Mona--although voting for that side--clearly still find it pretty distasteful.