For Supreme Court’s conservatives, it’s all about the letter of the law

And progressives can’t get the progress they want unless the constitution says the opposite of what it says. 

For Supreme Court’s conservatives, it’s all about the letter of the law

Conservatives are controlling most of the Supreme Court’s closely divided cases so far this term by sticking to the words written by Congress. The justices have settled challenges involving the rights of workers, immigrants, prisoners and patent owners by painstakingly defining the meaning of words.

More:

Conservatives are controlling most of the Supreme Court’s closely divided cases so far this term by sticking to the words written by Congress.

The justices have settled challenges involving the rights of workers, immigrants, prisoners and patent owners by painstakingly defining the meaning of “for,” “shall,” “any” and “other,” along with “satisfy” and “salesman.”

Yes, I understand nuance and interpretation. I understand that “Congress shall make no law…” is a starting point, not an ending point, for 1st Amendment freedoms. But contra the liberals’ argument, first and foremost a law should mean what it says. While a meaning can be interpreted, and legality can be declared or denied by courts, the text of the law should be an obvious starting point and should carry significant weight…

This is what Gorsuch, the newest justice now entering his second year on the court, promised during his Senate confirmation in 2017 — to “try to understand what the words on the page mean, not import words that come from us.”

“If the words are plain, you stop,” he said.

Right-Mind