Always
“So, you are not above manipulating voters if needed, ”
You mean like encouraging chants of “lock her up” or “MExico will pay for that wall” when obviously neither will happen?
I’ve learned to live with it. thats politics today. So be it, you want Democrats to be the better ones and stop? pass.
And nobody is being manipulated. If having a candidate who promises he wont pack the court is important to you. Then don’t vote biden. thats fine.
“and you are not really outraged by R- senate,”
I am, but outrage doesnt mean, I dont want the democrats to respond in kind. Im am outraged that Republ;icans are changing their tune to “steal” a seat. BUT once it happens it is fine for the other team to do the sam.
Say we play a gam, you get caught cheating, I say “hey dotn cheat, that isnt fair” and you cheat anyway. Then next time I cheat, it is silly for you to say “Ha you dont mind cheating” I do! but if you cheat I will do the same
” I don’t think this is a great place to get extra votes for your candidate,”
not looking to.
“what is it about R- and D- judges? beyond political preferences, this seems to be an argument between “originalists” and “live constitution”.”
THIS is an empty talking point. (Not blaming it on you, people have been saying it for years) For example Obviously “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” did not include the internet. Yet nobody (to the best of my knowledge) argues it should be interpreted as originally intended and doesn’t imply to typed speech online. The only question is how broadly to interpret the constitution. does freedom of speech/the press apply to internet speech? Does it apply to campaign finance? NOBODY says it ONLY applies to spoken word and literal press.
So in reality originalists ARE a bit “stubborn outliers who try to reach out back to outdated time” whol like liberal justices are motivated by their biases. They DO expand the constitution when it suits them. Perhaps a better example is bush V Gore when the Equal protection clause was expanded to suit the “originalists” desire. and so much for States rights…
As for the Torah.
Lehavdil elef alfei havdolos. Torah lechol hadeos is “living” As even Justice Scalia noted “A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” 8 e Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22, pp. 76-77 (I. Epstein ed. 1935). (footnote omitted). Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.” (Capperton V A.T. Massey)