Originally Posted by
Enoch the Red
You are asking RandBlade, who is not, as far as I know, a member of the US Supreme Court, if he would support a Supreme Court ruling that led to obvious negative outcomes for vulnerable people if the text of the law and constitution supported it.
First, if RandBlade is not a strict textualist, (he may or may not be) then there is no contradiction if he says he doesn't support such a thing.
Second, not being a member of the court, he can of course support or decry any ruling he likes, for any reason he likes. If he supports a ruling they have come up with for moral reasons instead of their strict adherence to your favored interpretation, why is that problematic to you?
Third, being fair and impartial might mean to someone else that they look beyond the text, or the original intent in order to render a verdict that is in alignment with those goals.
Fourth, for someone who claims to be all about consistency of approach, I haven't heard a lot out of you about prosecutorial discretion. Is a prosecutor who decides not to seek charges against a home owner who killed an intruder without first attempting to retreat, (in states where their laws have that as a requirement) being fair, impartial, and just, or simply inconsistent? What about a police officer who doesn't ruin the life of someone for possessing a little weed in states where it is illegal?