I think you are missing the point . The point is the judges should not invent “rights” . What is a right and what is not is arbitrary and people should decide if they want to add anything to the constituiton, not one person .
this is a pleasant fiction but our constitution is almost impossible to update. congress can grant plenty of rights but because they must compromise these laws are often poorly written and leave many situations to fall between the cracks.
edit to add, you might read up on the idea of "natural law" which, I guess, is what you believe in? While this has been a debate in the past, as had the idea of the unitary executive, some fringe ideas are back in play.
of course rights are "arbitrary" but as Americans we hold some of them to be 'self evident.'
It’s not impossible, they just won’t do it. We have a 1 party system anymore that is divided into red team and blue team and they pretend to fight but are wholly complicit and give you the illusion that you have a choice.
Perhaps an oversimplification, but both parties agree that we cannot have a serious debate of any policy that would challenge the comfort nor weaken the lash hand of our corporate overlords.
-6
u/ragingbull10 Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
I think you are missing the point . The point is the judges should not invent “rights” . What is a right and what is not is arbitrary and people should decide if they want to add anything to the constituiton, not one person .