• Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I could imagine them trying to include corporations… but seriously, Constitutional textualism is a cornerstone of what it means to be a conservative judge. They’re pretty content to ignore or reverse precedent, but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Lmao, “what it means to be a conservative judge”

        Bruh there are no values, being a conservative judge just means youre either comically dumb and fail upwards, or you are actually pretty smart, lack any sort of morals or decency, and know how to manipulate yhose around you for your benefit and their loss.

        Lets not try to write conservatives as if they actually have something they stand behind now

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        19 hours ago

        … but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

        And yet, presidents now have extremely wide criminal immunity.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution that says they don’t.

          Like most sane people, I think that decision was overly broad and has dangerous implications. On the other hand, if Congress could make crimes about Article 2 powers, that would effectively allow Congress to take those powers for itself by statute, overruling the Constitution’s assignment of them to the president.