"Legislating From The Bench" Vs. "Interpreting The Constitution"

[DistressedAmerican]

The distinction between "legislating from the bench" and "interpreting the Constitution as it was written" is bullshit, pure semantics, especially at the level of the SCOTUS.

Anytime a new law is tested before the SCOTUS, they "interpret the Constitution". That is what the SCOTUS's job is. Since the document has not been rewritten, it stands to reason that "as it is written" is a given.

When wingers refer to "legislating from the bench", what they really mean is "misinterpreting the Constitution", as they see it. In other words disagreeing with the mouthpiece doing the shouting about the interpretation in question. Since it is not up to winger talking heads to make those calls, their opinion on interpretation vs. misinterpretation is pretty much irrelevant.

Unless of course that is a right THEY want to read into the Constitution.

All SCOTUS Justices both "interpret the Constitution" AND "legislate from the bench". That is their job.

When you hear a winger throw that phrase around you can assume right out of the gate that they are full of shit and not in a position to question those with the Constitutionally mandated right to make such calls.

Wingers. Will they ever stop twisting words? Redefining meanings? Propagandizing?

[afdip]

1. semantics . . . scotus judges have been doing this since

marbury v madison, haven't they?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. "legislating from the bench" means they made abortion legal.

All they care about right now is mobilizing the base, and what better way to do it than a knock down drag out fight.

[Richard Steele]

3. "Legislating from the bench" is code for "disagreeing with us"

Amd as you say, anyone who uses the phrase
isn't qualified to be involved in the debate.

[Sir Jeffrey]

4. I laugh when I hear that RW talking point...

because it shows such a trite and infantile understanding of our system of laws.

The Common Law was adopted from the English system of common law. That is JUDGE MADE LAW. Has been for centuries. The idea behind the Common Law was to give judges leniency to apply the statutes with discretion to reach a more just conclusion than simply applying laws strictly. Not every crime deserves punishment.

Those against "legislating from the bench" are unknowingly advocating some brand of the Napoleonic Code (Gasp...FRENCH!). Throw that one at your stupid republican acquaintance and see them try to explain that one.

What's more, they want all crimes strictly applied to the Constitution, which is a bare bones and vague instrument intended to be modified and reinterpreted as times and situations change. Why these yokels keep getting face time on network tv is beyond my comprehension. I've seen better legal analysis from my cat.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. NOT FRENCH!