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 …
-
-
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.
-
I just discussed this point. It is immensely important that originalism (the normative theory) leads to mixed results. Some conservative, some liberal, some libertarian, some progressive, some neutral.
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.