Question
Social Issues > Abortion > Roe v. Wade
The next President should appoint strict constructionist judges
|
415 votes for this question.
Background
Strict constructionism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits the breadth of judicial interpretation: once the meaning of the text has been ascertained (perhaps using tools such as originalism or purposivism), strict construction requires a judge to apply the text as it is written and no further (or less far) - that is, judges should avoid drawing excessive inference from the statute or a constitution.
Thus, for example, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's injunction that 'Congress shall make no law,' should be construed strictly: the term 'no law,' Black thought, admitted virtually no exceptions. Some of the doctrine's most forceful proponents have been Supreme Court of the United States Justice Hugo Black and former U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Chief Justice of Australia Owen Dixon.
However, 'strict construction' is not a synonym for textualism or originalism, and many adherents of the latter two philosophies are thus misidentified if called 'strict constructionists.' 'Strict construction' is also used loosely as a term of art in American political discourse, both on the left (as a caricature of conservative jurisprudence) and on the right (as shorthand for conservative judges). This usage is pervasive, but in some tension with the legal meaning of the term; on the campaign trail in 2000, for example, President George W. Bush promised to appoint ""strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas"", even though Scalia has said that he is 'not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be.'
The meaning of 'strict construction', then, may turn on who uses it in what context; an appellate judge asking counsel at oral argument whether the statute should be construed strictly is likely using the term in its legal sense; a candidate on the campaign trail who promises to appoint or oppose strict constructionists is likely using the term as a surrogate for a broader set of conservative legal views.
see more on Wikipedia
Thus, for example, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's injunction that 'Congress shall make no law,' should be construed strictly: the term 'no law,' Black thought, admitted virtually no exceptions. Some of the doctrine's most forceful proponents have been Supreme Court of the United States Justice Hugo Black and former U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Chief Justice of Australia Owen Dixon.
However, 'strict construction' is not a synonym for textualism or originalism, and many adherents of the latter two philosophies are thus misidentified if called 'strict constructionists.' 'Strict construction' is also used loosely as a term of art in American political discourse, both on the left (as a caricature of conservative jurisprudence) and on the right (as shorthand for conservative judges). This usage is pervasive, but in some tension with the legal meaning of the term; on the campaign trail in 2000, for example, President George W. Bush promised to appoint ""strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas"", even though Scalia has said that he is 'not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be.'
The meaning of 'strict construction', then, may turn on who uses it in what context; an appellate judge asking counsel at oral argument whether the statute should be construed strictly is likely using the term in its legal sense; a candidate on the campaign trail who promises to appoint or oppose strict constructionists is likely using the term as a surrogate for a broader set of conservative legal views.
see more on Wikipedia
No comments on this question yet.
