So I am atarting my PhD in the Fall and in preparation I am rereading some books and reading some others for the first time. One of the new ones is "An Integrated Approach to Constitutional Law" by Andrew Caplan. I figure to chronicle some of the odd things I am learning about how the law looks at our favorite document, the US Constitution.
Consequentialism
"The consequentialist approach asks which interpretation of the Constitution will produce the best results".
This is a real thing. Judges making rulings on the Constitution based on how they think it should work out for the best. Except that their decision is forward looking and they can't actually know it will turn out for the best. And it means they are basically choosing for whom it should work out best for.
Fucking madness.
Consequentialism
"The consequentialist approach asks which interpretation of the Constitution will produce the best results".
This is a real thing. Judges making rulings on the Constitution based on how they think it should work out for the best. Except that their decision is forward looking and they can't actually know it will turn out for the best. And it means they are basically choosing for whom it should work out best for.
Fucking madness.
- 3