I don't think this result is "conservative" under any possible definition I think you mean a pro-Trump interpretation. But I don't believe originalists on Court like Scalia usually voted in short term interest of Republican Party (but cf. Bush v Gore). They voted ideology.https://twitter.com/lsolum/status/1022602155289731072 …
Put another way, the emoluments definition doesn't support a conservative ideology or long term interests of the Republican party.
-
-
Again, you seem to be confused or making a slip of the tongue. My point was that the definition adopted by the court is not conservative. You seem to be agreeing.
-
I'm saying it is not a liberal or conservative issue. And that it does not prove that originalism can lead to "not conservative" results on the issues that actually matter to most people regarding what SCOTUS does.
-
I agree. I did not claim that the emoluments decision proves that originalism will produce progressive outcomes in other cases. That claim would have been wildly implausible.
-
So then I don't see the point of your example. You are proving that originalism may lead to "not conservative" results in cases people generally don't care about. (I think that explains what Scalia did in criminal procedure cases, by the way.)
-
If you think that people don’t care about the emoluments litigation, l think you are demonstrably wrong.
-
They care but it is a one-off I doubt Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker will have emoluments issues, and that partisan stances on the questions will survive past Trump. It is not an enduring split like guns or abortion.
-
Agreed, it is highly partisan and political, but not an enduring issue. I never claimed it was.
-
then I fail to see the point in your thread on the case of flagging it as a "not conservative" result.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Rick, is it just me or has he come up either a definition of “public meaning originalism” which is basically just the traditional common law cannons of construction?
-
This approach to originalism is not new. It’s been defended by me in many many articles & endorsed by dozens of scholars. The key is that contemporary living constitutionalist theorist reject the Constraint Principle. Example, David Strauss’s common law constitutionalism.pic.twitter.com/lHQjsgPhOo
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.