This isn't even an exaggeration. There's a real theory real legal academics support that's basically "a sufficiently talented judge can come to whatever conclusion they want and put a defensible gloss on it." There are similar theories of legal interpretation that posit even the most plain of plain language in a statute or constitution can be plausibly re-written by a motivated court.
Hell, its based when this method is used for progress.
Funny enough, its conservatives who pretend theyre sticking to the Constitution as written (or that "what the foundinf fathers intended" bullshit). But ive seen progressive advocates openly just say "no just interpret however you need to to do the right thing."
As if legal arguments matter at all. The SC is playing Calvinball.
This isn't even an exaggeration. There's a real theory real legal academics support that's basically "a sufficiently talented judge can come to whatever conclusion they want and put a defensible gloss on it." There are similar theories of legal interpretation that posit even the most plain of plain language in a statute or constitution can be plausibly re-written by a motivated court.
Hell, its based when this method is used for progress.
Funny enough, its conservatives who pretend theyre sticking to the Constitution as written (or that "what the foundinf fathers intended" bullshit). But ive seen progressive advocates openly just say "no just interpret however you need to to do the right thing."