The hearing on the SCOTUS is about, in my view, how we balance on a changing world: Do we hold onto an unchanging Constitution or do we change the Constitution when balancing on a changing world. What do we keep and what do we change. Do we reject change or do we change too much? The balance is a good judge. The good judge applies both wisdom and compassion.
The conflict between Conservative and Liberal views of the Constitution is about the creation of new rights that didn’t exist in the original Constitution because it the world then was not ready for these new rights. But when society is ready for a new right, a new individual, then the Court must balance on that need instead of the original fence post: you can’t balance and ride a bike by holding onto a fence post.
New Rights create new individuals. You are not a citizen of the US, an American Individual unless you have the same rights granted to all citizens. In the. 50s and before, if you were gay your gayness had to be underground or you were arrested. Before women could vote, they were not full citizens. Only men were citizens. And so on. But you get the idea. Where did all these rights come from?
Do we interpret the Bible as literal fixed. history that can’t change? Or do we interpret the Bible metaphorically so that we can apply its truths to my actual life as a unique individual with the capacity to interpret the Bible on my own. Or do I have to defer to the priests?
You see the connection. The liberal Bible is a fixed universe that is adverse to life, which is change. Life is change. A literal Constitution is a fixed society that cannot grow with the birth of new individuals. There are no fixed individuals.
When you learn to balance, you hold onto your father. When you balance on. your own. you let go of the father.