Permanent Constitution or a Permanently Changing One?

[Kuciwalker]

Have you noticed the politicization that has gone into judicial appointments since? Notice how a nominee's position on abortion rights is practically a litmus test?

[MRT144]

You know, for a Sherman you sure are trying hard to defy the milquetoast aspect.

Kuciwalker =

Anyway, it's activism if it results in politicization?

[Kuciwalker]

No, the politicization of the appointment process has resulted in SCOTUS upholding the right to an abortion.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, the politicization of the appointment process has resulted in SCOTUS upholding the right to an abortion.

Because people who have supported roe were nominated by people who opposed it?

[Arrian]

I really hope someday the abortion issue goes away. We spend FAR too much time & energy talking about it, instead of issues I care more about. It's irritating.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Blame Roe

[Arrian]

That's convenient, but I'm not sure that sans Roe the national debate would be less heated. I understand why some believe Roe polarized the debate, but I think the issue itself is sufficiently polarizing that we could be in a similar place now even without Roe.

Anyway, Roe happened.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Without Roe the states could have actually worked out the issue. Instead, they've been completely unable to have any meaningful debate on abortion and the issue has practically frozen.

[Arrian]

That's the idea, sure. Then again, I think it's entirely possible that there still would be a national debate on it even if Roe hadn't happened, or had been decided differently. That candidates for President would still have to give their position and potentially be drawn & quartered by various portions of the electorate for their answers.

-Arrian

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Without Roe the states could have actually worked out the issue. Instead, they've been completely unable to have any meaningful debate on abortion and the issue has practically frozen.

The states were doing this for over 70 years with alcohol before 1920- it doesn't seem to have done any "good". I think the problem really isn't about abortion, it's about groups attempting to manipulate national mythologies of 'public opinion' to gain political power.

[Kuciwalker]

The states were doing this for over 70 years with alcohol before 1920- it doesn't seem to have done any "good".

So the courts should have declared alcohol was unconstitutional?

(I know that's absurd, I'm just completing the analogy to show that it doesn't make sense.)

[MRT144]

so the judges are activists because they polarized the issue, or they are activists because they were polarized before the case, or what?

[Kuciwalker]

They're activists because they stretched the Constitution to fit their political ideology, as I said above. Roe is bad for many more reasons than mere judicial activism.

This isn't all that complicated, MRT.

[MRT144]

so then are all judges who have upheld the decision activist because they have upheld the decision? And furthermore which justices were nominated and have upheld roe that were nominated by a president that was anti roe?

i mean labeling judges activist contends what they did was solely based on political and personal belief and that neither has any place in interpretation of the law.

[Spiffor]

Re: Permanent Constitution or a Permanently Changing One?

Originally posted by VetLegion
So, which approach to having a constitution do you consider superior? What do they have in your neck of woods? When was the last change?

It is relatively easy to have a constitutional change in France. You either need a 3/5 majority of Senate + Assembly gathered together, or you need a referendum to pass.

The latest constitutional revision is very recent, I think no sooner than this year, and it banned death penalty.

Personally, I prefer a constitution to be a short outline of the country's values, institutional workings and inalienable freedoms. And I prefer such a constitution not to change too often.

Failing that, if we are doomed to have a very precise constitution, I prefer it to be easily changed. That's the case of France, where we do have our basic values, but where the constitution also encompasses things as detailed as the institutional arrangements in New Caledonia.

Needless to say, the European constitution was horribly detailed, and horribly static; I was quite hostile to it