Originally posted by Viss1:Yes, I see the major distinction there. Hardline conservative judges who interpret the Constitution exist, but we're not allowed to call their decisions "hardline conservative" when they apply that ideology to their decisions.
You can call them that, if you believe that's what guides their decisions. But be careful about incorrectly inferring causality. If Ginsburg could actually read the Constitution and interpret it as if she could, would she be a hardline conservative?
Originally posted by Viss1:In other words, in Davoland, judges who interpret the Constitution "correctly" are hardline conservatives, but I'm "dumb" for saying hardline conservatives match your interpretation of said Constitution.
Not what I'm saying. Can you read? I'm saying that the vast majority of people who interpret the Consitution correctly also happen to be what you may consider 'hardline conservatives'. You seem to think that their political ideology guides their decisions. If you believe that, then my side will consider it a compliment (oh, that's right, you're not a leftie, so that would be our side ).
). 
