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.
- A Female 007 Leaves Bond Fans Shaken (Not Stirred), And For Good ReasonThe spy film genre currently needs two things: a new Jacontinue reading >
- I’m Getting $250,000 In Student Loans, And Taxpayers Shouldn’t Bail Me OutPersonal responsibility? Not necessary. 2020 Democrats continue reading >
- Public Library Deletes Pictures Of Drag Queens Fondling Children At Story HourParents complained about the event, showing the photos continue reading >