No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.
I never said that hindsight was an appropriate view. I simply commented that I have the benefit of hind sight which biases my decision. But no, I would no appoint a woman justice for the sake of simply appointing a woman justice.
Many well respected people insist on how things SHOULD be. Of course, they mostly disagree with each other
Scalia himself, insisted that he himself was a texualist instead of a strict constructionist. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be...A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently: it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it failey means." - GOVT by Sidlow, Henschen
strict constructionist = Justice Thomas?
It has been the feeling of many throughout the history of the USA, that the Court should reflect the polity.
Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare: "Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome
or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law." yet conservatives rage about Roberts' conservatism. Even the conservative Justices raged about that conservative view. I suspect, your claim is false. I believe most Justices go with where the law takes them. They just disagree on how to get there.
As did the founding generation.
