"Legislating From The Bench" Vs. "Interpreting The Constitution" [View All]

[DistressedAmerican]

The distinction between "legislating from the bench" and "interpreting the Constitution as it was written" is bullshit, pure semantics, especially at the level of the SCOTUS.

Anytime a new law is tested before the SCOTUS, they "interpret the Constitution". That is what the SCOTUS's job is. Since the document has not been rewritten, it stands to reason that "as it is written" is a given.

When wingers refer to "legislating from the bench", what they really mean is "misinterpreting the Constitution", as they see it. In other words disagreeing with the mouthpiece doing the shouting about the interpretation in question. Since it is not up to winger talking heads to make those calls, their opinion on interpretation vs. misinterpretation is pretty much irrelevant.

Unless of course that is a right THEY want to read into the Constitution.

All SCOTUS Justices both "interpret the Constitution" AND "legislate from the bench". That is their job.

When you hear a winger throw that phrase around you can assume right out of the gate that they are full of shit and not in a position to question those with the Constitutionally mandated right to make such calls.

Wingers. Will they ever stop twisting words? Redefining meanings? Propagandizing?