If you don't believe judges should be originalist/textualist, it's hard to justify them being life-tenured & unelected.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
.
@baseballcrank@jadler1969 the incorrect premise of your question is that originalism and textualism are meaningfully constraining2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen@jadler1969 My point is, if you believe judges are never constrained by law, why shouldn't they instead be responsive to voters?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
.
@baseballcrank@jadler1969 agreed, but don't think that textualists or originalists are any more constrained than other judges2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen@baseballcrank that claim is only plausible when confined to set of truly hard and "political" cases1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jadler1969
.
@jadler1969@baseballcrank again disagree. I give lots of examples of mundane statutory Qs like this in new book http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Legislation-Statutory-Interpretation/dp/1454845414/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401919780&sr=8-1&keywords=hasen+legislation …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen@baseballcrank I suppose that's another reason to get your book.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@jadler1969 @baseballcrank there are so many.
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.