smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

This is my opinion and no one else.

I want a strict constructionist jurist who will carefully consider the plain language of a statue, the on the record statements made by the people who v**ed for/against the law creation and the accumulated precedent on the subject. Who will remorselessly hew to what the statute writers intended and the existing precedents then filter that through a strict constructionist view of the constitution.

Who will act according to the law and constitution without regard to politics, his personal beliefs, the beliefs of the President who nominated him, the opinion of any theological institution, or anything else. Who will not use either liberal or reactionary activism to advance an agenda, either his or anyone else's. Who will not hesitate to dump a legislative problem on the legislature and exhort them that they must negotiate and compromise and fix it themselves. Who understands the value of precedent and will only argue to overturn it if the facts & issues at hand overwhelmingly demand it. Who will not hesitate to side with the executive or legislative view according to the law. Who will create opinions and establish majority positions based on the law no matter how much everyone else dislikes it.

Thats what I'd like to see as the next Justice. In short, someone who pisses off ALL the commentators, no matter their position.

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Then make eight clones of him/her.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

An an originalist. Sounds good to me. Make rulings that conform to the constitution, no matter who it pisses off.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Why do you think no one else has this opinion?

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

I don’t think that at all, I simply wanted to state how felt. It would be great if enough people had a similar opinion to actually get such a justice. Perhaps if such a jurist blows up both sides of the isle enough times something might get done well in Washington.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Thank you. I’m with you.

btbg

I agree with you except for one thing. I don't think they should pay too much attention to precedent. It is pretty tough to take a strictly constructionist viewpoint and try to reconcile that to some of the current precedents which have no basis in either the constitution or constructionist review of current laws.

Roberts ruling on the affordablecare act is a perfect example. Would h**e to be bound by that kind of precedent. Otherwise 100 percent agree.

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Hooray! A rational discussion in the Attic.

Triple G

I’m happy to see the move from conservative versus liberal to discussion of constitutional interpretation.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45129.pdf

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Bill 45

You are not going to get that kind of person from Moron the First.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

how about 15 or 17 such judges?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Why make a rule that
1. The number of justices must be an even number.
And
2. Only a conservative President can appoint a replacement for a conservative appointed justice.

That forced the justices to rule on the law if they want a decision .

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

A precedent should not change if it was based on constitutional law- since the constitution has not changed - only the opinion of the justice(s).
I think that is the basis for “ Stare decisis“ - it has already been decided once.
It is not just a Supreme Court issue. It is why you see the volumes and volumes of law books behind lawyer desk,

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

The key word in your post is "interpretation" Person a 's interpertation may e different than person b and both could be wrong. the constitution must be followed NOT interpretated. It is not a flexable document as RBG has said. A justice may not invent constitutional changes. Thyere is a mechanism For that--ammendment