Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I would argue that this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent, politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward explaining citizens' acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental freedoms.
AhimMoonchowsen · 4553 days ago · link ·
"I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public's ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people".
This, amongst other things is what led to the OWS movement, imo.
What a legal rule means is always determined by the political assumptions of the person applying it.
This is why I have always maintained that constitutional "originalists" are all deluded. There is no possible way that most law can be interpreted in the same way "The Framers" would have interpreted it, especially since there was clearly disagreement about the role of government within the ranks of those men at the time. "Judicial activism" is a ruse put forth by the right wing propaganda mill. All justices who rule on constitutional matters are activists; they wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. How are we to settle matters of, say, internet law with original intent? Nothing is, nor ever was, nor ever could be politically neutral.