Respect for having that jpg locked and loaded.
-
-
Replying to @willwilkinson @baseballcrank
It’s funny, but the insistence on the methodological mediation is always funny. Why not just say, “I just want my contemporary policy preferences upheld which oddly comports with this thing called originalism re an often ambiguous late Enlightenment document.”
1 reply 3 retweets 50 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @willwilkinson
If I did not believe in the Constitution, I would be against having *any* of these issues ruled upon by judges - & I would never have gone to law school. Judges have only the legitimacy that written law gives them.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @willwilkinson
All the justices claim to believe in the constitution. That’s why it’s silly to believe a particular method always leads to the political outcome you prefer. And that’s it’s the only legitimate reading.
3 replies 0 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
Originalism functions as a rhetorical strategy to obscure and lend legitimacy to the imposition of ideology on the law.
11 replies 36 retweets 231 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @baseballcrank
Of course. I suspect Dan has never read seriously any legal theory outside of originalism and certainly hasn’t read Posner on Scalia. Or Stanley Fish on textual indeterminacy. He thinks he’s found The Truth. But the law is about avoiding blindingly blatant falsehood.
4 replies 5 retweets 40 likes -
I doubt there’s a sincere quest for truth here anymore than Kudlow thinks he’s found some higher truth in the work of Laffer. To the contrary, originalism as originalists have evolvingly defined it has always been an atrocious method for understanding the meaning of anything.
4 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
Replying to @brianbeutler @yeselson and
Scalia himself acknowledged that he only believed in it up to a point. Which is ... exactly how all the other justices approach it. The question is whether they see it as a factor of a broader analysis or the Only True Way (cc:
@MikeSacksEsq).2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jessewegman @brianbeutler and
Scalia recognized the weight of precedent. But the fundamental question is: why have written law? Why have law interpreted by courts, not electeds? Why not a British-style common law system? To answer that is to reveal that the anti-originalists have no theory of legitimacy.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank @jessewegman and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @jessewegman and
That’s silly. And, again, it’s not borne out by the texts themselves on either end, ie, there are just as many examples raw power by cons these days vs the judicial modesty days. That’s when Scalia came in, but he moved aiming with the conservative movement.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank and
Shelby shouldn’t even have been granted cert. Why do it? What besides raw power drove that? Why go beyond the four corners of the litigation itself in Citizen’s Action? All exercises of “raw power.”’
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show 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.