Q9: Men in Black

Since the Constitution of course does not spell out the laws and regulations of every possible case and scenario, how could 'interpretation' be avoided by the justices while handing out a verdict? The fact that we have a body of justices indicates that there is a gray area that needs to be interpreted. If everything was spelt out clearly in the constitution then a system such as a simple income tax filing software would do the job. How could Levin be so against people who interpret?

Jn: Originalist means interprets the Const as narrowly as possible. Someone who believes the Const does not change.
Jer: Narrow is NOT going to international law, like O’Connor.
Ray: Originalists think the activists are adding to the Const., for example, the right to privacy.
Kevin: Another example – substantive due process. The Court has manufactured rights that the Framers didn’t intend.
[discussion of Federalists Papers]
Kevin: You have no problem with judges legislating from the bench, right?
Ge: If there is a case not covered in the Const, they can look at it.
Joe: They uphold the status quo or they don’t.
Kevin: That’s the legislature’s job…
[whose job is what]
Kevin: There was no question about how the Framers interpreted things like abortion, etc. There is no argument.
Ge: How do you know?
Kevin: Read history. The question is, who reverses those laws.
[discussion on who does what again]
Jason: Should judges be doing that based on their beliefs or on the law?
Ge: Judges need to interpret, exterpolation, etc because the laws do not contain every situation that could arise.
Jason: That’s just an excuse.
[tangential cracks about engineers and software terminology]
Jason: Const. says you have rights that can’t be taken away. Now, the court says that no matter what laws there are, there are rights that can't be taken away. That’s not right.