tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post8521903634254851243..comments2023-10-17T02:52:22.037-07:00Comments on David's blog: Religion in America - A town called Greece Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-80320612091017738042014-04-03T03:36:49.334-07:002014-04-03T03:36:49.334-07:00I don't mean the ones that Mark Levin favors (...I don't mean the ones that Mark Levin favors (and you told me you like). I mean that people from all political stripes like certain interpretations of the Constitution's text which just are not present or obviously implied. I used fundamental rights above as examples.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-4166863138214067302014-04-02T14:02:52.407-07:002014-04-02T14:02:52.407-07:00Well I am definitely in favor of some amendments- ...Well I am definitely in favor of some amendments- pronto!Donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-38292307565943064292014-04-02T05:32:41.691-07:002014-04-02T05:32:41.691-07:00Best as I can tell, the purpose of precedent is no...Best as I can tell, the purpose of precedent is not to provide correctness, but a road map so that people can know what to expect and act accordingly. Of course, sometimes precedent is overturned and often it is questionably applied. But, generally, it.seems that the powers that be prefer predictability to correctness. I do agree with you that precedent should not trump the words or plain meaning of the Constitution. But in doing so -- were that the actual practice - we. would need some amendments pronto.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-39181167544603870492014-04-01T18:10:03.623-07:002014-04-01T18:10:03.623-07:00Well the idea or precedent has always been rather ...Well the idea or precedent has always been rather stupid. You are correct that precedent has taken primacy over the text of the Constitution to the point where most decisions rarely ever quote the Constitution but, instead, extensively quote cases. The idea that we should adhere to bad decisions and bad law is destructive and undermines rational legal analysis. Part of the problem is also that courts are timid and always want to draw endless shades of gray in cases so as not to make clear cut and comprehensive decisions. This leads to further confusion and lack of clarity as judges try to shoehorn a case in front of them into a decision made previously. Bad decisions should be disregarded no matter how long their pedigree. Donnoreply@blogger.com