My concern is that this sounds like music to the ears to those of us disposed to activist intervention yet seems a direct spell to the end justifies the means. Though I know.,Think, you would disagree - what prevents the slide into this?
I still hold that you do not have to abandon principle. You can just change the Constitution. We have done it 27 times. Principles are very helpful when the other side is in power. Which it almost certainly will be. Of course they will try to stretch it as far as they can, but they can only stretch it so far. Also, asking the Supreme Court to abandon law and procedure is a bit like asking your plumber to paint your house. They may be a way to get your house painted, furthermore, you may should paint your house, but the plumber is not the man for that job.
Also, you can take a principled, constitutional stand against birthright citizenship as an example. Just read the dissents from that case.
"Each group has a crucial role: fighters who dive into conflicts to challenge enemies, builders who create institutions, funders who support the effort, strategists who chart paths through complex conflicts, politicians who build pragmatic coalitions, and intellectuals who develop the ideas the movement needs. Each group will have its own manners and norms, and even the most virtuous and committed people within each will have to collaborate with figures other groups find distasteful. Each deserves deference in pursuing its core function, and each owes a degree of deference to those fulfilling other functions."
It seems obvious that "norms" and "conservative principles" are primarily in view here, not aspects of the Constitution. The decision in Trump v Barbara is highly questionable, as a matter of law. Less so as a matter of norms.
My concern is that this sounds like music to the ears to those of us disposed to activist intervention yet seems a direct spell to the end justifies the means. Though I know.,Think, you would disagree - what prevents the slide into this?
Excellent.
I still hold that you do not have to abandon principle. You can just change the Constitution. We have done it 27 times. Principles are very helpful when the other side is in power. Which it almost certainly will be. Of course they will try to stretch it as far as they can, but they can only stretch it so far. Also, asking the Supreme Court to abandon law and procedure is a bit like asking your plumber to paint your house. They may be a way to get your house painted, furthermore, you may should paint your house, but the plumber is not the man for that job.
Also, you can take a principled, constitutional stand against birthright citizenship as an example. Just read the dissents from that case.
"Each group has a crucial role: fighters who dive into conflicts to challenge enemies, builders who create institutions, funders who support the effort, strategists who chart paths through complex conflicts, politicians who build pragmatic coalitions, and intellectuals who develop the ideas the movement needs. Each group will have its own manners and norms, and even the most virtuous and committed people within each will have to collaborate with figures other groups find distasteful. Each deserves deference in pursuing its core function, and each owes a degree of deference to those fulfilling other functions."
👍🏼👍🏼
Bravo Nate. Really well done.
Good point but I think the full phrase " responsibility to protect the people and community for which you have responsibility" is far less abstract.
It seems obvious that "norms" and "conservative principles" are primarily in view here, not aspects of the Constitution. The decision in Trump v Barbara is highly questionable, as a matter of law. Less so as a matter of norms.
Obviously questionable as a matter of law! How so as a matter of norms? Just because it was practiced incorrectly for a long time?