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.
- I Didn’t Vote For Trump In 2016. Here’s Why I Hope He Gets Four More YearsMy hope for another four years of Trump is that conservcontinue reading >
- New York Times Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016The New York Times admitted on Thursday that the Obama continue reading >
- Heartbroken Dad Of Trans Teen Breaks Gag To Beg For End Of ‘State-Sponsored Child Abuse’‘I had a perfectly healthy child a year ago, and thatcontinue reading >