Of course they are not. And there are few to no elite judges who share Trump's avowed policy preferences. But we will likely at least get competence, and to me that is most important.
-
-
Any thoughts re: my theory? (I figure you're a law person or law adjacent. I think it's a viable argument, but I have no interest in disseminating it; so just curious for takes. For obvious reasons I do not want to talk it over with my colleagues and friends in the bar.)
-
Tweet unavailable
-
1/I think Cowan's floor remarks warning about jus soli actually support my point, as it's common for a bill's opponent to "misread" a bill on the floor to try to control its impact; & the bill's passage despite this warning indicates that, to the extent we're in original intent
-
2/land, and ignoring that you typically can't infer the intent of a multi-member body, it was understood Cowan's warnings were not contained within the bill. In any case, a pure originalist arg. can just proceed from the text - which differs from natural law just soli in text.
-
3/[I'll also note most of that article concerns another clause, the clause I'm using has not had much ink spilled at all!] * * * TY for reading! Good comment.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
1/Originalism used to be founded on original intent, usually of the drafters and ratifiers. Modern theories are now typically grounded on original public meaning, i.e., the meaning & construction a competent reader of English subject to the conlaw provision would give.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.