How Originalism Ate The Law: The Trap | Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 май 2024
- In the second part of our series on Amicus and at Slate.com, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are back on the originalism beat. This week they’re trying to understand the mechanisms of what Professor Saul Cornell calls “the originalism industrial complex” and how those mechanisms plug into the highest court in the land. They’re also asking how and why liberals failed to find an effective answer to originalism, even as the various “originalist” ways of deciding who’s history counts, what constitutional law counts, which people count, were supercharged by Trump’s SCOTUS picks. Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap, highlights how the Supreme Court turned to originalism to gut voting rights. In 2022, the US Supreme Court’s originalism binge ran roughshod over precedent and unleashed Dobbs and Bruen on the American people - Mark and Dahlia talk to a state Supreme Court justice about what it’s like trying to apply the law amid these constitutional earthquakes.
In today’s Slate Plus bonus episode, Dahlia talks to AJ Jacobs about his year of living constitutionally, and she confesses to an attempt to smuggle contraband into One, First Street.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Note: Captions are auto-generated by RUclips.
Follow Amicus on RUclips: • The Trump Indictment |...
Subscribe to Slate: / slate
Learn more: slate.com/podcasts/amicus
Follow Slate on Social:
Host Dahlia Lithwick on Twitter: / dahlialithwick
Slate on Twitter - / slate
Slate Podcasts on Twitter - / slatepodcasts
Slate on Facebook: / slate
Slate on Instagram: / slate
If a Supreme Court justice is an originalist, they should be paid the original salary, $4,000 a year. Have a nice day.
A discussion of Scalia's 2008 Heller decision is incomplete without mentioning his 70 paid-by-others hunting lodge trips where he certainly hobnobbed with gun manufacturers and lobbyists. That'll color a jurist's thinking as much as originalism.
So what. Ruth Ginsburg was an ACLU litigator. Wow, super influenced by a repeat litigant before the Court. Must be wrong! Thurgood Marshall repped the NAACP, another repeat litigant. Must be super influenced by their views, and thus his rulings must be wrong!
It’s laughable that you think justices don’t already have their own strong views on any given subject and must imagine that they are “influenced” by hunting partners. 😂 When in reality someone with his force of mind is influencing THEM and not the other way round. Get real please.
Great show. Thanks
Happy Day!! Happy Mother's Day, Delilah 😊🎉
As a long-time community organizer, the first rule I told local activists is the facts don't matter. Decisions are a product of power. The second rule was that the facts matter just not to decision makers. They matter to the people you want to organize. Sound familiar?
Cynical post-truth progressive nonsense. That’s why you will lie about anything as a means to an end. Very Trumpian actually.
2018, I drew a cartoon of Trump and Lady Constitution, back to back, she gasping, “Wait!” while trying to load her musket; he with his AK-47 already beginning to count the paces.
In the background, a blindfolded Lady Justice, up against a brick wall, is wildly waving her sword around and yelling, “Where is he?”
Caption:
‘It shall come to pass.’
Vote blue for all offices so Biden can nominate more SCOTUS justices and Congress can pass laws to prevent insurrectionists from holding office per the 14th amendment.
Rational incoherence is a charge which is never welcomed by the promoters of successful incoherent doctrines, especially those which ground themselves on guilty factual distortions. If our Constitutional jurisprudence even survives, I think we should hope that rational sanity will be an important criterion for a new generation of jurists after the current incumbents have exhausted their lifetime appointments, resigned, or been reformed by exercise of Congress' real powers. Probability favors the first alternative.
as an "origionalist", Clarence Thomas should only be referred to as "Groom", or "Footman".
Im worried about Trump's advancing Dementia.
Disappointed that you "allow" McDonald's to advertise on your show. To say that they purvey poison is not inaccurate. Can you do better?