And I have very little hope that I will convince you that your view of originalism and originalist judges, although supported by reasons, is ultimately wrong. I do hope that you would recognize that a powerful case has been made, and that the debate is unresolved.https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1022264902851866627 …
-
-
1/2 Of course. I’m sure you have a thoughtful position. But your work is an exception to my general impression, which is that very few progressive scholars have engaged these issues deeply and with an open mind. There are similar problems on the right.
-
2/2 And I fear we are entering a period of dogmatism, resulting from the polarization and politicization of constitutional theory. This would be tragic. We need to listen with respect and an open mind. These issues are hard not easy.
-
Apologies if this was covered earlier, but aren't there just two parallel debates, one normative about the best constitutional theory, the other descriptive/predictive/ explanatory about how particular judges behaved (Scalia) or will behave (BK) and why?
-
Yes, and my position is normative, not descriptive.
-
Right, and I think Rick’s is mostly descriptive/predictive/explanatory. Hence the disconnect, I suspect.
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.