re: #589 Aceofwhat?

It is precisely his record and his body of work that makes me believe the results were, luckily, positive despite a philosophy i would never endorse in a current or future judicial candidate.

What about his Civil Rights work was bad?

What is “right”, in the context of the law, can be thought about. When straying from the confined of the law (“let the law catch up”), one is relying on personal philosophy rather than the stringent guidelines.

Again: You are using that one phrase as the one lens, the one way to look at Marshall and his work. This is rather strange to me. In addition, I think that Marshall was speaking honestly about what all the Justices do, not what he personally does. There are very few Justices who rule on the basis that law is law; The Supreme Court is the court that judges laws according to their Constitutionality, and our Constitution contains any number of abstract and loft ideals which define it. It is not defined by a rigid framework of laws, but by a rather few philosophical notions of the position of citizens, state, and freedom.

Maybe when you explain what problem you have with Marshall’s Civil Rights work I’ll understand your position better.

And again again: Why did you change Marshall’s word ‘think’ to the word ‘feel’, and do you realize you did it?