Phrase of the Day:
(1) A system of principles utilized to interpret difficult questions of law arising under the Constitution of the
. (2) The schools of Originalism and Textualism (or collectively referred to as “Strict Constructionism”) are the only schools believed to contain determinate principles of Constitutional Interpretation by some. (3) A phrase used as part of a logical fallacy to draw a conclusion from premises that does not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q. United States
Used in Every Day Conversation:
“What I haven't seen by Judge Sotomayor is an embrace of determinate principles of constitutional interpretation. Without that, there are no bounds on the judicial role -- nothing to keep one from being a judicial activist."
Big Ed Whelan NRO Regular and Legal Expert
Translation (Wingnutese to English):
Some members of the Conserva-gencia do not believe that Justice Sotomayor possesses determinate principles of constitutional interpretation (thus is a Judicial Activist) because she is not of the Strict Constructionist School of Judicial Theory. This conclusion, that Justice Sotomayor is a potential Judicial Activist, is proven because Strict Constructionists are believed to adhere to a system of Determinate Principles of Constitutional Interpretation. Hence, because the Judge Sotomayor cannot be proven to possess so-called Determinate Principles of Constitutional Interpretation (i.e., is not a Strict Constructionist), then she should be deemed a Judicial Activist and not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
In other words just a more sophisticated form of heads I win, tails you lose.