Tell me honestly that you wouldn't completely freak out if there wasn't a single white Christian on the court.
-
-
Straw man, as typical. Balkin’s an originalist too. These texts are open to not *any* interpretation, but to multiple plausible interpolation. The method doesn’tlead to your preferred politics.
-
Of course, there are *some* cases where there are arguable originalist positions on both sides. But central to the liberal-judicial project are multiple decisions with no plausible originalist justification. These are exercises in raw power, wholly lacking legitimacy.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You keep insisting there is one true method, and one true reading in each case, rather than some that are more persuasive than others. But if that were true, Scalia’s decision in Smith wouldn’t trouble you. And you’d acknowledge he ignored method when it suited his politics.
-
So basically you find a way to rationalize his ACA votes because you hate health care legislation. But you ignore Smith because Scalia—ironically hippy punching to arrive at the correct decision—flies in the face of your idea of religious liberty for Christians. All inconsistent.
End of conversation
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.