Comments by "" (@Mawyou) on "Hawley To Nom: Why Would It Be Necessary To Get Rid Of Portraits Of White Judges?" video.

@EmetVoce What does that even mean "following the constitution"? The vast, VAST majority of stuff that goes high up in the court system isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So when you say "follow the Constitution," it really has no meaning other than how you decide to interpret it. Before you say I'm wrong, go actually look up a copy of the Constitution. You'll see that most of the stuff you care about isn't even mentioned. So it has to be interpreted by judges who all have a different opinion. School segregation was legal.... until it wasn't. Because different judges had a different opinion about what was "constitutional" based on a document that doesn't even mention it. If it was so easy to just "follow the Constitution," judges' decisions wouldn't be called OPINIONS.
1
@EmetVoce But ALL judges write OPINIONS. Because their job is to INTERPRET the Constitution. Reason being that most of the stuff we fight over is not directly addressed in the Constitution. So judges have to use their knowledge of history to "figure out" what the Founders "probabaly" would have wanted. Which, again, is why their rulings are called OPINIONS. Whenever I hear someone say "Just follow the Constitution!!", it lets me know they have no idea what they're talking about and probabaly failed government class.
1
@EmetVoce So the logical conclusion to your argument would be that regular citizens should be able to own tanks, rocket launchers, nukes, bombers, flamethrowers, and chemical weapons. After all, those are "arms". And the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." Right?
1
@EmetVoce Extreme? I'm sorry but at what point did it become extreme? There are no extremes. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. That's what the founders intended. I should very much be able to buy and distribute chemical and biological weapons.
1