In my opinion it is important to have both interpretivists and noninterpretivists comprising the justices on the Supreme Court. It is because of their great differences in philosophies, and differences in their decision-making process that there has come to be a built in system of balance. The court must include justices with different approaches to constitutional interpretation. “A Court without dissenters is a Court that will not adequately inform us of the costs of choosing the path taken” (Theories of Const. Interpretation).
Through the debates over the different ways of interpreting the constitution, the justices and people as a whole, continue thinking about the different options for interpretation.
I believe this causes all those involved to think of things from more than one perspective and to justify their position more completely. Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that constitutional interpretation “is not at all a science, but applied politics” (O’Brien, 67).
This quote further underscores the need for balanced viewpoints. The interpretation of the Constitution is very difficult to divorce from political beliefs or motivations. Both interpretivists and noninterpretivists therefore make important contributions to the judicial process. In my opinion, it is quite possible that the framers of the Constitution created a deliberately vague document, which would be able to adapt to modern times.
... outlined in the Constitution, but simply by a decree of the Court. It has been said that the Court's "loose" constitutional interpretations have been ... demonstrated by Robert Bork and Justice William Brennan. Robert Bork believes that the original intent of the Constitution should guide judges, not ...
Many scenarios, which most likely would never have been thought in the time of the writing of the Constitution, such as issues relating to the Internet or gay marriage are hot topics today. I do not think these issues would be on the minds of the framers of the Constitution, yet these are controversial topics today. In the current time, I do not think anyone would think it possible for black people to not be considered citizens. However, in the Dred Scott v.
Sanford case, Chief Justice Roger Taney, who was a strict constructionist, using the “four corners” of the constitution as his guide came to this very conclusion (O’Brien, 76).
I think Taney’s decision in this case would make many people see the need to look further than the four corners of the Constitution. Black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was written but there was no mention of this in the document itself. This may have been deliberately left out of the Constitution because the framers thought this would change in the future. On the other hand, a decision by Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was considered by some to be based on her own personal beliefs and beyond the legal interpretation of the Constitution. In the case of placing limitations on the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers wanted to place limits on the disabilities protects under the act, while advocates of the disabled opposed this measure.
Under the original act, employers were required to hire people based upon their ability to perform the job in spite of any disabilities. Ginsburg recognized both that the Disabilities Act could be too broad in its representation of people considered disabled, and also how people could manipulate the system in order to become protected by the act. Ginsburg decided the law would not include people with correctable disabilities. (Ruling Defines Disability).
When deciding the outcome of a case many factors contribute to a judge’s decision. The text of the Constitution, the intentions of the framers, prior court decisions, the social, political, and economic implications of the interpretation, and morality. The text, intentions, and prior decisions are considered to be accepted guides to Constitutional interpretation by both interpretivists and noninterpretivists. The social, political, and economic implications, and moral arguments are usually reserved for the noninterpretivists interpretation. I believe that all of these considerations should be addressed before coming to a conclusion in a Supreme Court case. This is an important part of the process.
We live in a society where people are judged for who they are and if they seem to have any type of flaws those flaws tend to make up who the person is. People with disabilities shouldn’t be judged by their disabilities. Our society has come a long way in accepting people with disabilities but we still have more to accomplish seeing as the harsh judgment still exists. We need to be able to live in ...
There are necessary differences between interpretivists and noninterpretivists which make our Judicial system more complete and lasting. Interpretivism prevents the judges from gaining too much power and leaves the power with the elected representatives. In theory, interpretivism allows judges to be neutral parties, basing decisions on the framers intentions. Noninterpretivism allows the constitution to change as our country changes on issues of equal treatment of minorities.
Noninterpretivism also allows the judges to prevent crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision of the Constitution that no longer serves its purpose, without the need for an amendment. This allows the constitution to stay relevant in a constantly changing society. There is a delicate balance between these two opposing viewpoints. Both interpretivists and noninterpretivists contribute important ideas, experiences, and debate to their interpretations of the Constitution.
Debate causes all parties to clarify and question their own arguments, leading to a more relevant decision. Our government is based on a system of checks and balances, and I believe the Judicial branch is no different.