ATProto Browser

{
  "text": "Souter knew what was up and never let us forget it\n\nwww.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxa...",
  "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
  "embed": {
    "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
    "images": [
      {
        "alt": "Let me, like the lawyer that I am, sum up the case I've tried to present this afternoon. The fair reading model fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do. The Constitution is a pantheon of values, and a lot of hard cases are hard because the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision for the cases in which one of the values is truly at odds with another. Not even its most uncompromising and unconditional language can resolve every potential tension of one provision with another, tension the Constitution's Framers left to be resolved another day; and another day after that, for our cases can give no answers that fit all conflicts, and no resolutions immune to rethinking when the significance of old facts may have changed in the changing world. These are reasons enough to show how egregiously it misses the point to think of judges in constitutional cases as just sitting there reading constitutional phrases fairly and looking at reported facts objectively to produce their judgments. Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.\nThe fair reading model misses that, but it has even more to answer for.\nRemember that the tensions that are the stuff of judging in so many hard constitutional cases are, after all, the creatures of our aspirations: to value liberty, as well as order, and fairness and equality, as well as liberty. And the very opportunity for conflict between one high value and another reflects our confidence that a way may be found to resolve it when a conflict arises. That is why the simplistic view of the Constitution devalues our aspirations, and attacks that our confidence, and diminishes us. It is a view of judging that means to discourage our tenacity (our sometimes reluctant tenacity) to keep the constitutional promises the nation has made.",
        "image": {
          "$type": "blob",
          "ref": {
            "$link": "bafkreicnjbsdtxmfcjupszdxz4ymqaustclts5yidscve7xjb7vqnsmeaa"
          },
          "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
          "size": 911634
        },
        "aspectRatio": {
          "width": 1152,
          "height": 1281
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "langs": [
    "en"
  ],
  "reply": {
    "root": {
      "cid": "bafyreihf5axomb3frhboleacvc5aixx5n6v7pdzfm5ysup5ems3ejxy6gq",
      "uri": "at://did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/app.bsky.feed.post/3loqiwjdvsk2x"
    },
    "parent": {
      "cid": "bafyreihf5axomb3frhboleacvc5aixx5n6v7pdzfm5ysup5ems3ejxy6gq",
      "uri": "at://did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/app.bsky.feed.post/3loqiwjdvsk2x"
    }
  },
  "facets": [
    {
      "index": {
        "byteEnd": 83,
        "byteStart": 52
      },
      "features": [
        {
          "uri": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxaDwOCXD8",
          "$type": "app.bsky.richtext.facet#link"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "createdAt": "2025-05-09T13:18:03.001Z"
}