The Kansas Supreme Court majority’s philosophy of construing ‘what ‘liberty’ and ‘inalienable natural rights’ mean in the real world today’ leaves us with a rule of law as changeable as popular music.
Even if Brett Kavanaugh turns out to be a tremendous originalist justice, the courts still represent a major threat to the republic.
The flawed argument boils down to the idea that the ‘original’ intent of the founding fathers doesn’t matter, because they were imperfect people.
What we see in this report is a fear of a truth being revealed: That all of the LGBT lobby’s victories are hollow if the Supreme Court functions the way it was meant.
On the cases with less political valence the justices can ‘nerd out’ on legal theories and reveal their jurisprudential minds when they know their decisions won’t make the front pages.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a $135,000 fine against the owners of a local cake shop who declined to use their artistic skills to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
We have divergent interpretive theories that map onto ideologically sorted parties, so is it any surprise that elections are high-stakes for judges?
Eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees was the natural culmination of a tit-for-tat escalation by both parties. The brinksmanship is all symptomatic of a much larger problem.
Should pro-lifers who voted for the president because he promised to nominate a judge who would overturn Roe worry it won’t happen?
Cosmopolitan’s Jill Filipovic has constructed an argument against originalism that should embarrass even the most disinterested of history students.
During Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings senators and commenters are batting around words like ‘textualist,’ ‘originalist,’ and ‘evolutionist.’ Here’s an illustration.
Instead of doing the serious work they were elected to do, congressional Democrats spent the day virtue-signaling to their base.
One does not have to have read the Clarence Thomas canon, like I have, to know that Jeffrey Toobin’s recent article in The New Yorker is nonsense.
In the battle between orginalism and judicial restraint, law professor Randy Barnett argues originalism is more important for restoring the Constitution.
When those who would eviscerate the Constitution viewed Antonin Scalia as their greatest enemy, they unwittingly honored him.
- Is Sexual Autonomy Worth The Cost To Human Lives?We might look at the modern dating world and ask ourselcontinue reading >
- I’m A Legitimate Asylum-Seeker, And I Support Trump’s Border WallLike many people, I used to think President Trump was econtinue reading >
- Obama-Era State Department Official Provides More Evidence Of FISA AbuseKathleen Kavalec’s notes provide at least four more pcontinue reading >