Let's say you needed to hire a football referee. If he said that he was a "pragmatic" referee, who viewed the rule book as "living" and thus would interpret the rules to suit the "times," would he be your man?
Since it's the job of the rule-makers to craft the rules, and the referee's role is only to determine if they've been broken, I think you'd be aghast. It would be obvious that you were dealing with someone who didn't know what his job was or was unwilling to perform it. And you certainly wouldn't want to hire a referee who was giving himself the latitude to say, "This fellow here violated a rule, but since I don't like that rule, I'm going to let his action stand" or "That guy over there has gone by the book, but I don't like something he did, so I'll penalize him anyway."
A judge's job is analogous to a referee's. It is the legislature's (rule-makers') place to make the rules, and the judge's only role is to determine if they've been broken. How he feels about a given law is irrelevant. He is but a gatekeeper.
Read the whole article
I was asked to leave a liberal blog and never come back during the Obamacare debate when I pointed out the Constitution (and the Founders own words as outlined in the Federalist papers) created a Federal Government with limited powers. I opined that like it or not, that was our Government. I was told that the Constitution was outdated. I really pissed them off when I stated the way to change the nature of the Government was not by Legislative or Judicial fiat, but through the Amendment process. They asked me to leave. Some people cannot handle the truth.
I have been kicked out of better places.