Hi John,

Define "solid constitutionalist" -- that's the rub.

The "original constructionists" aren't consistent. Even Scalia wasn't consistent -- the record is well documented.

Originalism itself suffers from time warp. A parent who in 2005 "no phones after 8 at night" meant something quite different than a parent who says the same thing now. To pretend it covers new meanings of phones is disingenuous.

So actually, what I want in a Supreme Court Justice is a realist who takes the intent in the moment of creation and applies it to today's reality. And does that consistently.

Hank



>>>Side question. Is this an act off political incorrectness, or SCOTUS a invariable pointer?
>
>I'd suggest you don't want any activism in judiciary. SCOTUS is special because it can actually overturn Congress by declaring law unconstitutional. Whereas most forms of government are supreme and can create new law to overcome judicial dissent. You'd think people of any political persuasion who care about the Republic would prefer stolid constitutionalists on SCOTUS who will be most reluctant to subvert democracy, but many seem eager to pack SCOTUS with like-minded activists.
>
>>>What about given the alias a real name? Psycho-Docs insist in using the real name for reasons.
>
>You mean Supreme Court of the United States? SCOTUS? Sorry, Psycho-Docs may not approve but other sorts of Docs are trained that jargon is efficient. ;-) But you're right, US people may recognise SCOTUS but many others won't. Alternatively, are you hinting at a term like "corruption" wrt willful judicial activism? ;-)
>
>>> It's not like the dragon at the The Wind's Twelve Quarters, you know.
>
>Alas, have not read so reference sails over my head like arcane jargon ;-)