This is parsed quite nicely. From a 60 Minutes interview in 2013.
But listen again. Listen carefully. Do you hear what she says? And what she has not said?
Nothing mentioned about positive vs negative rights.
BZ
Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the Constitution as a “living document”
This cv n t is the least qualified justice to ever disgrace the court. A C student, she bragged that she would have never made it if it were not for affirmative action. Yet she was confirmed by a landslide.
Imagine that. A product of policies she clearly endorses. Conflict of interest anyone? Bueller?
BZ
Typical lawyer. Used lots of words and didn’t say a damn thing.
She talks around everything… Bottom line, she ‘thinks’ it’s living and SHE should be deciding what it means today…
The LDAMM despise Constitutional contextualists and originalists because such an outlook does not propose or mandate that SCOTUS create its own laws instead of interpreting laws.
Three branches of government:
1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judicial
Lesson for LDAMM: it is the Legislative tasked with creating law, not the judicial.
What do you have when you possess jurists who don’t even understand the basics of government?
BZ
The bad part of the interview is when Justice Sotomayor seems to laugh at the notion of “history” as playing a role — a central role — in deciding Constitutional issues, and the far too common notion of “anything goes” when it comes to interpretation and application of law.
I think a better discussion is to define and distinguish FAIRLY between originalism, common law originalism, common law “historical”, common law “living constitution” and today’s liberal “living constutution” forms of jurisprudence.
See below a great article that I don’t agree with totally that helps to frame a rational discussion of these issues. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/living-constitution