At times, she too willingly ceded ground to her conservative questioners. We wish she had spoken out forthrightly in favor of empathy, a quality President Obama has said he is looking for in his judicial nominees. We would have liked to hear her boldly defend the idea of the Constitution as a living document, one that changes with the times. And we would have preferred if she had used the hearings to explain to the public that the much-mentioned distinction between judges making and applying the law has little meaning.Last I checked there are three branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative makes the the law, the judicial interprets the law, and the executive well, executes the law. At what point did this change? Now the judicial makes law? Also how does the constitution change? I say the constitution has changed to mean I am king. That makes sense right. The plain meaning of a document does not change. If it does then the document has no meaning. Just imagine you sign a lease for an apartment and at the end of the lease you can't get your security deposit back because the law has evolved during that time. That makes about as much sense as a living constitution. If you subscribe to a living constitution at least admit that your aim is to impose your will. I can respect honesty.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
This is what the New York Times thinks about the law:
F. at 7:39 AM