Caring and Loving Interpretation of the Constitution

When responding to another’s Facebook post, I wrote I wanted justices to make a “caring and loving” interpretation of the constitution. It wasn’t surprising to see a quick objection to that. A friend wrote,  “Your premise about the loving and caring aspect interpretation is faulty . . . I would much rather interpretation of law be undertaken as much as humanly possible without the taint of subjectivity and human emotion, simply for the sake of equity and justice.”

And, here’s the problem with ideological purity. Whether we’re talking about left or right, doesn’t matter. The real world is messy and nothing is pure. My friend had some key words in his objection: “humanly possible.” I hasten to point out that Mr. Spock exists only on the Enterprise on television and in the movies. He is not real. When we real Earthlings interpret the constitution, it is not humanly possible to divorce ourselves totally from our emotions, upbringing, learned behaviors, etc. We can try to be totally objective, but my friend has one thing right. We can only do it to the extent that it is humanly possible.

Given that Mr. Spock’s passionless opinion formation is not possible, I would hope that whatever portion of our thinking that’s influenced by our emotions, upbringing, and learned behaviors will be guided by a caring and loving attitude.

Why in the world would anyone object to that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>