The law does not come from polls, it comes from statutes. Textualism is correct not because it is conservative or liberal, but because it is true.
What they were able to do to the Constitution implicitly through the courts, many progressives are now calling to be done externally at the expense of the judiciary’s independence.
The flawed argument boils down to the idea that the ‘original’ intent of the founding fathers doesn’t matter, because they were imperfect people.
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.
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.
During Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings senators and commenters are batting around words like ‘textualist,’ ‘originalist,’ and ‘evolutionist.’ Here’s an illustration.
Once I had the opportunity to serve in the Wisconsin legislature I realized just how severely flawed is the idea of looking to legislative history for guidance in statutory interpretation.
The Supreme Court justices considering King v. Burwell’s Obamacare case should take note of this famous example of textualism’s merits.
- ‘Let’s Go Brandon Challenge’ Goes Viral On TikTokA new challenge has taken off on TikTok where users percontinue reading >
- How Texas Protected Its Vote From Getting ‘Rigged’ In 2020Mollie Hemingway’s new book, 'Rigged: How the Media, continue reading >
- Kyrsten Sinema, John McCain, And The Bad Omens For Democrats’ Wildest DreamsThe two sides of the Democratic Party aren’t singing continue reading >