#Originalism

Jonatan Pallesen

jonatanpallesen

This @ezraklein podcast is so profoundly misguided, it's incredible:https://vox.com/21523051/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-ruth-bader-ginsburg-democracy-term-limitsIn the first half he talks about how bad it is if US becomes less demo

Randy Barnett

RandyEBarnett

CJ Roberts is a pretty fair example of the sort of genuinely conservative judge--he is no progressive--favored by Republican presidents & conservatives before the marked rise of originalism. His split-the-baby

Gregg Gonsalves

gregggonsalves

Conservatives are crowing over this as an own the libs moment, denying that many who support public health restrictions are people of faith. This broke long standing precedent, so don't

David French

DavidAFrench

So my former colleagues at @AllianceDefends are under fire. A few things:First, ADF is so "hateful" that it recently joined with the ACLU and NAACP to press for the single-most

Orin Kerr

OrinKerr

A few random and unhelpful thoughts on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, a thread. FWIW, I don't know Judge Barrett well, although we've met. She was a fellow at

Paula Simons

Paulatics

The legacy of the Famous 5 is a complicated one. I tried to explore it in a video essay, which felt particularly timely, against the background of the Amy Coney

Jan Hasselman

JanHasselman

1. Federal court litigator here. “Originalism” isn’t a legitimate judicial philosophy, its just cover for a different set of policy preferences. Most of those policy preferences are deeply unpopular. 2.

Emily Bazelon

emilybazelon

Has any senator so far pointed out that Scalia's originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was wrong, according to the constitutional historians who actually study this? And who think the

HalloWin This Thing 🍂🎃👻

ResistanceGenz

Tomorrow Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed.I need you to hear thisI'm a gay, biracial 17yr old who believe in basic human rights, equality, dignity, and science. Barrett is an

Seth Cotlar

SethCotlar

[Stares in historian.]https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1316003676918513664 Has Amy Coney Barrett ever read interpretations of the constitution from, say, 1910? Or 1850? Does she think those past jurists just got the Constitution wrong

John Holbo

jholbo1

There is a lot of debate about whether the Dems should attack Amy Coney Barrett for this-or-that. That's a mistake. They shouldn't attack her at all. She's not the issue

Salvator R. Tarnmoor

s_r_tarnmoor

Since I've been summoned to the debates of twitters past (10 days on twitter being several lifetimes),might as well post a short thing about another Dworkinian response to the oath-breaking

Gray Connolly

GrayConnolly

As we lament Adrian Vermeule's Lenten absence, he has bequeated us this communitarian understanding of a constitution and the state it constitutes"Promoting a substantive vision of the good is, always

Max Burns

themaxburns

On Fox News right now, we have Mark Levin slamming Chief Justice John Roberts for "making some cockamamie distinction between federal courts and state courts." Levin says Trump should *make*

Siraj Hashmi

SirajAHashmi

The List of ppl who need their phone taken [ACB special pt. II]:1) @HillaryClinton 2) @sarahcpr 3) @laurenthehough4) @chrislhayes 5) @HeatherMallick6) @ZerlinaMaxwell 7) @ElieNYC 8) @McAdooGordon 9) @JRubinBlogger 10) @umairh/@AnandWrites/@

David Gibson

GibsonWrites

If we step back from the faux-rage at supposed anti-Catholicism against SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett the big story here remains the fact that there are SIX Catholic on the