Follow up to Levin’s discussion with Hannity
Note: if you hadn’t already, go back and pay particular attention to Levin’s comments about how our justices are “twisting language” to “rewrite” the Constitution on the fly, essentially holding on-going constitutional conventions in which a single justice can, by coming down on one side or another of a given issue (which is oftentimes supposed to be out of their purview), effectively rewrite the document, and leave us no recourse to reverse that single lawyer’s oftentimes blatantly strained and absurd reasoning, which is presented as interpretation but is anything but.
It is politically motivated creative writing.
The answer to the problem? Intentionalism (or in legal form, originalism) as remedy, and term limits as an enforcement mechanism.
Our own lawyer class, which has overtaken the messaging for the GOP and “conservatism” — and worked diligently to marginalize the likes of me — considered this idea “fundamentally unserious” not so long ago, preferring to ignore me when I attacked them for their willful blindness and their self-serving turn toward electoral “realism”. As if the Roveans were ever going to promote candidates who would fix what Rovean candidates, and other statists from both parties, had themselves wrought.
But don’t worry. Now those same people are fired up, and they’re ready to fight the battles to regain constitutional control of the country. Line up behind them, ye masses of patriots. For they now carry the standard of conservatism and are its brave frontline warriors!
– at least, now that the devastation wrought by a phony two-party system is becoming more obvious, and the field has been cleared for them to adopt ideas they once openly sneered at, the original purveyors of which they banded together to turn into outcasts and “pseudo intellectuals”.
Somebody needs to give them a trophy. Were I designing it, it would be a set of newly-dropped testicals cast in bronze.
But then, I’m one for irony. YMMV.