There have been a lot of downright wrong things posted on this blog, nearly all of them by me.
But this is the single most ignorant sentence we’ve had here: “I, as a conservative, would just as soon have a computer programmed to decide based on strict interpretation of the ACTUAL constitution rather than whether the judge agrees with me or Ken.”
Yep. Spoken by somebody who must have absolutely no understanding of constitutional law. Here is what Judge Bork (presumably no activist) has to say on the topic:
“The judge’s proper task is not mechanical. ‘History,’ Cardinal Newman reminded us, ‘is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules.’ No body of doctrine is born fully developed. That is as true of constitutional law as it is of theology. The provisions of the Constitution state profound but simple and general ideas. The law laid down in those provisions gradually gains body, substance, doctrines, and distinctions as judges, equipped at first with only those ideas, are forced to confront new situations and changing circumstances.” (Robert Bork. Source: The Tempting of America at 352.)(credit to Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy for finding quote)
I believe this is the code he is looking for…
Let strict = conservative;
For any decision:
“decide based on ‘strict’ interpretation of ACTUAL constitution”
END
We have ourselves a silver medalist.
To interpret means “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance.”