Personally I think it is perfectly logical that in a society that has advanced to accept same-sex couples, that same-sex marriage is also acceptable and they therefore have the same fundamental right to marry as per your constitution. It is also better for society for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry for multiple reasons.

I suppose that you think having to keep a gun in order to be a part of the militia means that since ?2005 it’s been okay for everyone to own a gun. That’s now an acid test for an originalist, but it’s only been law invented by SCOTUS for a little over ten years.

Yes, times change, which is why there is an amendment process. That process has been invoked 33 times for the U.S. Constitution (including 27 ratified amendments and 6 not ratified). Additionally, according to the U.S. Senate web site, approximately 11,700 resolutions to amend the Constitution have been introduced. State constitutions are routinely revised, and many have been rewritten multiple times (Georgia’s on its ninth constitution, as is Louisiana, and that’s not counting Secession). Stable does not mean static.

Moreover, it’s entirely feasible to apply original intent to new circumstances; it does not take pretzel logic to realize that the prohibition on unreasonable search includes high-tech surveillance techniques that the founders could not imagine. However, it does not follow that a judge has the power to just make stuff up.

It would seem self-evident that a precondition for a peaceful and harmonious republic is a stable body of law that says what it means, means what it says — and means what the people, not a ruler, say it means.

Yes, of course each side in a case presents a legal argument that presumably they think is sound. (The adversarial system decrees that one side must be right and the other wrong; that’s another good reason to favor democratic sausage-making over judicial activism.)

You can judge for yourself the arguments in the Obergefell case: The four dissents are rigorous, lucid and devastating. The majority opinion is mealy-mouthed gibberish.

I don’t know enough about the history of your Supreme Court to know what the cause of the partisanship is. I would say that both those who are for and against same-sex marriage for example, consider themselves to be constitutionalists. Insisting it should be interpted the way the Founders imagined is like insisting the Bible be interpreted the way it was when it was written, which of course many do. Societies grow and evolve, and so should their laws. It’s a reason I wonder at the wisdom of such a document long-term. Our language will move on. What happens when the English of the future is as different as our English is from that of Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Beiwulf?

The best way to reduce abortion is high quality age appropriate sex education from a young age and promotion of the use and availability of effective contraception for ALL those who don’t want to get pregnant. The highest rates of both teenage pregnancy and abortion are in the Bible Belt, where local governments resist proper sex education in schools and making contraception more easily obtainable.

New Zealand, for example, currently has its lowest abortion rates for some time because of efforts to improve sex education and the availability of contraception to teenagers. Other countries have found the same.

In principle, we’re pretty much in agreement. As I’ve said, like you, I believe that judges ought to be selected based on Constitutional fidelity, ability to follow the law impartially, and due respect for the limits of their own power. A judge who is pleased with the outcome of all of his own rulings probably is a bad judge, as Justice Gorsuch has noted (quoting Justice Scalia).

Judicial nominations ought to be as independent of partisan politics as possible, and that was the case for most of our history. But then the power of the federal judiciary escalated dramatically in the 1960s with a series of increasingly dubious rulings. Courts seized the power to make laws and change the Constitution outside the amendment process. The radical left loved it at the time because they got to change the law and the Constitution without needing to win popular approval. The nomination process became the only available avenue for the people to push back and check the power of the courts.

Then in 1987 the Democrats, on orders from the abortion industry, blew up the traditional confirmation process once and for all with a vicious assault on Judge Robert Bork. The republic has yet to recover from this bizarre and disgraceful episode.

You can read some of the more controversial decisions, and decide for yourself which side more consistently follows the law impartially based on sound reasoning, and which side is more likely to employ an emotional and poorly reasoned argument to reach a predetermined outcome.

Justice Gorsuch is committed to follow the law as it is, not as he would wish it to be. I’m confident that’s what he did in this case. Again, I believe the law should be different. Direct, intentional state-sanctioned execution is wrong and should not be lawful at any stage of life: Not for the duly convicted, and not for the utterly innocent.

But the hypocrisy of phonies like Maddow and Breyer is a bit hard to take. If Mr. Lee had been executed 51 years ago, in utero — before he had had an opportunity to commit an offense of any kind, before a single appeal had been heard, without the benefit of one iota of due process (let alone 20 years worth) — we would not hear a peep from Maddow. Nearly a million Ledell Lees are executed year in and year out, and Maddow voices nothing but approval.

There is no abortion “industry”. People do not get pregnant just so they can have an abortion, and certainly not to feed an industry.

Did you watch Maddow’s piece? Although it’s all relevant, the part on Arkansas isn’t that long and is at the beginning. She explains why killing people because your drugs are going to expire is not a good reason to go ahead. Some of these people still have arguments to make that would protect their lives. The justices appear to be voting in support of Arkansas because they support the death penalty. This is why it’s wrong for people to be selected for the court based on their political affiliation, left or right.

I don’t even know the names of the judges on NZ’s supreme court off hand, let alone their political affiliation. The same is true in most Western democracies. That’s because they judge based on the law, not politics. I do know those of your country because their decisions so often run on political or ideological lines, which doesn’t seem right to me. The decisions of many judges at lower levels also appear that way.

Imo, too many jobs are filled by political appointees or are voted into office so popularity becomes more important than competence. I don’t know how every voter can be expected to know who would be the best candidate for dog catcher or senior clerk.

No, his decision was to follow the law within his limited powers. You and he and I may disagree with a law (and I do), but republican (small-r) self-government depends on strictly limited powers within each co-equal branch. We are supremely fortunate to have a new associate justice devoted to the rule of law and the Constitution.

Judges who trash the rule of law in their personal zeal to protect the abortion industry have ensured that millions of someones were killed.

One of the eight men, Liddell Lee, has now been executed.The execution eventually went ahead because Neil Gorsuch broke the tie on the Supreme Court. His first significant decision was therefore to ensure someone was killed.

Ah, sorry, get it now. No worries.
Cheers,
Colin.

In NZ we have prisons with a separate compound for prisoners being kept inside for the safety of others even though their sentence is over. Each prisoner has his own house and garden. They are escorted to town to do shopping etc but look after themselves otherwise. Rehabilitation, counselling etc continues, but I don’t know if it’s compulsory.

I assume the map is like that for the US because the federal death penalty still applies everywhere.

Amnesty International don’t have reliable enough figures to know about China. They know there are executions, but have no idea how many. North Korea is another place where they don’t even know for sure there are executions, but they’re probably worse than everyone. Russia has a lot of people that die of mysterious illnesses in prison. There are suspicions about the real cause of death, but no proof.