Original Intent?

[Note to self: August 5th, 2005]

If things are black and white...

Which the so called original intent constitutionalists apparently think that they are, in particular as to the right of privacy. If the words are not there then the intent is not there, seems to be the standard that is used. If only we could be consistent with that.

But since often even words evolve or have interpretations, especially when they are connected together in sentences and paragraphs, and categorized numerically, and alphabetically and Roman-numeralized, not to mention with a little thing called grammar and punctuation, which can be a little tricky, well it is not exactly limited to a simple word search.

[brought forward]To the nomination of Harriet Miers:

This may be just circular logic that leaves nothing out, but lets nothing in. But if things are black and white, we must know what they are.

If conflicts of interest were addressed sufficiently with Roberts, I need to research more fully, but they pop up even more strongly with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

This would seem a plus for democratic hopes, in that Roberts and Meirs will have to recuse themselves from any decisions that pertain to events which they have participated in. The dark side is that it is not clear at whose discretion this determination will be made. It would seem that this is another circular logic that one must determine which side they are on, inside or outside of the loop.

If Roberts has already failed to recuse himself from a case while being interviewed for his nomination to the Supreme Court, can we depend on future justices recusing themselves from rendering opinions upon their own actions in their earlier career. If the primary reason for her nomination is having a judicial philosophy of the president's, then it would seem that we must examine more than just the constitution's original intent.