Strict Constructionist

When Bush ran in 2000 and 2004 he kept blathering about appointing "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court. He claimed that this meant judges who wouldn't "make new law" but instead would read the words of the constitution and get into a mental frame of the constitutional writers and strictly abide by their intentions.

I for one, find it hard to believe that in the 21st century you can claim to get into a mental frame of reference in which a country is founded on "all men are created equal" but in which slaves are counted as 3/5 of a person (Article 1, Section 2). That is twisted logic that I don't think many people today could honestly say they can wrap their mind around. Also, I doubt that the writers of the Constitution had any clear opinions about assault rifles (since the rifled musket itself was a mid-19th century invention), or same sex marriage, or late term abortions.

But here, finally, is an example of what kind of mental framework a strict construtionist is supposed to bring to bear:

Four Right-Wing Supreme Court Justices Argue That Buying Off A Judge Is No Problem When West Virginia coal overlord Don Blankenship’s company lost a $50 million verdict to one of its competitors, Blankenship set out to buy a judge. Rather than appeal his case to a fair tribunal, Blankenship spent $3 million to elect a friendly lawyer to the West Virginia Supreme Court, even running ads accusing the lawyer’s opponent of voting to free an incarcerated child rapist, and of allowing that rapist to work in a public school. Once elected by a Blankenship-funded campaign, the newly-minted justice cast the deciding vote overturning the verdict against Blankenship’s company.

Today, the Supreme Court held that this kind of justice-for-sale bribery has no place under the United States Constitution. But all four of the Court’s most conservative members voted that there is no problem when a wealthy businessman literally buys a judge. In a dissent joined by conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that this decision — on a case so egregious that John Grisham turned it into a legal thriller — would encourage “groundless” charges that other “judges are biased”.

From a post by Ian Millhiser on the website Think Progress.

Oh... now I understand. When you strictly construe the meaning of the framers of the Constitution they intended that money buys "justice" and that voting is to be manipulated by money until the results produce what the elite want.