Deeply confused by this @CassSunstein column. The argument that originalism is required by the oath of office is not a particularly novel claim. It has bounced around originalist legal scholarship for many years now. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-15/is-the-constitution-a-living-document-supreme-court-can-decide …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Whether or not I am presupposing the point in issue depends on what points you contend are in issue. One can argue *either* that 1. Another method is as good or better than originalism, or 2. Courts shouldn't or can't seek to follow a method that has determinable rules.
End of 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.