Actually, the amount of disdain the left shows for our Constitution -- by positing a framework for its interpretation which encourages judges to eschew the actual language of the document and the history of its interpretation in favor of subjective notions of what the document **should** say, rendering our fundamental charter a dead letter, and not at all a living document (which leftists destroy by diminishing the sanctity of what it actually says) -- is consistent with the amount of disdain the left showed for the Constitution when they tried to destroy the document on the battlefield as opposed to inside our courtrooms.

Nothing has changed, except for the venue and context in which the left seeks to destroy the foundations of our nation, in favor of their "fundamental transformation" that they wish to impose on us all without one amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Krikorian was expressing dismay with the manner in which a large swath of judges undertake to effectuate their oaths of office, which impugns not only their integrity as judges, but our whole system of government.

For you to suggest that we cannot criticize the judiciary is really quite astounding. They are as open to criticism as are any human beings.

They're mortal, and infinitely fallible, just like the rest of us.

If you want kangaroos as judges, go live among the wild animals in the Australian outback.

Funny that you'd admit to desiring to have your court system operate off of the pages of "Jungle Book".

How utterly unintellectual you actually prove yourself to be on a fairly consistent basis.

He uses the words that any experienced legal scholar/writer would use when describing the things he describes.

If you don't know that, it doesn't make him "naked." It just means you're going off on something you don't know that much about.

What can I say? You're totally out of your depth here. If you're comfortable with your ignorance on the matter, that's fine with me.

There is but no question that the power that the contemporary Court wields to day wasn't envisioned by a single Founding Father - even the ones who advocated for a strong Judiciary.

It has been downhill since Marbury. Robert Yates railed against ceding too much authority to the Supreme Court and recognized that such power would left to one institution would be fraught with problems for the Republic.

If he could have lived long enough to see the creation of the penumbra, he would have learned how prescient he was some 120-years earlier.

The Supreme Court we have today is not what the Founders had in mind; not even close.

Where exactly is this "disdain" for a branch of government, let alone "that much" of it?

Liberals tend to call any conservative criticism of anything "shrill" or "rage." I see you're participating in that little game.

Way to make my point for me.

That is the problem with the "Living Constitution" paradigm; it essentially lets the law mean whatever the whim of a judge decides it to mean; which is a recipe for chaos.

The point, which leftists like you routinely miss, is that the balls and strikes be called following learned people arguing over the meaning of words in the Constitution. This is fundamentally different from the "Living Document" idea, which essentially amounts to ipsey dixit.
Look, language is imperfect and imprecise. That is why the proper interpretation of the Constitution is performed through discerning Original Intent, by examining not only the words of the document, but the debates of the day, for clues about the underlying moral and legal principles that the framers were attempting to codify. That is the precise opposite of "Living Document," which essentially boils down to Ezra Kleinism: it's hard to unnnerstand, because it was written, like, over a hundred years ago and stuff. And who cares what those old dead white guys thought anyway? Just serve up some penumbral emanations to get us where progressives wanna go.

Mike, you don't seem to get it. If you want a good definition of what "cruel" meant at the time of writing, you'd need a good justice who is willing to delve into the floor debate, the constitutional convention, and other texts of the time period. It's no easy task, to be sure. But I suspect that with today's "sensitivities" it took a lot more to reach the cruelty threshold then than it does today.

But that's okay. If the Court comes up with an definition that fits historical standards, and if today's society no longer likes that standard, we have a mechanism for changing the Constitution: the amendment process.

It's much better to leave the People to determine their destiny rather than to rely on the feelings of one or two justices. This is why the Court should be explaining what the law "is" -- not what it "should be."

Leave the law-making to the lawmakers.