9th Circuit Tells the WLB to Go Fuck Himself

[popeyespappy]

I'm always amused that when a judge's decision goes "our" way they're always "activist judges with a political agenda!"

But when the decision goes "their" way the judge is politically astute and holding to the finest traditions of the law.

The most activist judges in reality are the ones calling themselves "originalists". They interpret constitutional provisions using twentieth century grammar rather than eighteenth and nineteenth century equivalents, thus painting the words of the founding fathers and the framers of the earliest amendments in a light totally contrary to their original meaning. They assume that the original ideals of the founding fathers were of a christian ideology, despite most of the founding fathers writing extensively that the republican system they were creating was expressly secular and that religious motives and organisations should have as little to do with the running of government as possible. They invent reactions the founding fathers and early jurists would have to scenarios and technologies which those same people would never in their wildest imaginations have dreamed of, never mind thought hard enough to come up with a what if scenario.

If these judges are framing their rulings based on what the original ideals of the USA were then I'm a monkey's uncle.

I'm curious whether you've read much of the material presented to the courts in some of these cases before you decided "originalists" interpret the Constitution using 20th century grammar? I ask because I have read some of the material available, and that is not what I found. In fact the opposite seems to be true. It is often the people arguing against the findings of the "originalists" that are attempting to redefine or limit the meaning of things found in the Constitution.

Take District of Columbia v. Heller for example. Much of what is found in the amicus briefs arguing for an individual right to arms in the Heller was supported by commentary from the time of the founders. The thoughts of Adams, Coxe and Monroe (people who were actually involved in the process) are often cited in support of an individual right.

Arguments supporting a collective right are often backed with commentary from later times. In the case of Heller the state actually argued at one point in a lower court that congress had changed the definition of militia from how it was originally used with later regulation in defense of their case.