Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet makes the case against originalism and judicial theories and discusses how this Supreme Court could enable and check Trump's authoritarian impulses.
Originalism is absurd. The individual right to bear arms didn’t exist at all until 2008 and the Heller decision. Money in politics didn’t occur until 2010. Super PACs? Please.
I forget who pointed this out originally, but the founding fathers did not believe that black people were three-fifths of a person. They believed that black people were zero-fifths of a person, but white people should get three-fifths additional representation in Congress for owning them.
Tishnet held up his Black Nationalism as if it were sincere. Honestly, Thomas obtained notice and then his appointment not because he adheres to black nationalism but because he used black nationalist rhetoric to undermine reforms. Doing so he parrots white reactionary positions as if _any_ blacks benefit other then him. This is in line with his benefiting from affirmative action to gain entry to law school.
Am I foolishly simple minded to think that anything Trump and his criminal organization say and do, or want to do, is bad for me and the nation? I keep thinking that it can't be that simple. But it sure seems to be. At least 95% of the time anyway. So, no matter what, just say "No Donald. No, no, no!"
Fuck Originalism bullshit. “ The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of their Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
I’m not a lawyer, but if Originalism means what the words of the Constitution meant at the time of the documents creation; then why aren’t all guns today black powder single shot rifles, as they were back in 1785???
It's disheartening to hear that there will be a Concervative majority on the Supreme Court for that long. To me, originalism is just a scapegoat to pursue power. Individual interpretation is always at play. Times have definitely changed since the Constitution was written. It's also time to add amendments, one that prevents such a vile and dangerous felon to run for President.
Barrett’s SCOTUS decision was not a litmus test for whether she is changing. It was within her philosophy to vote that Trump has to pay for contract services already rendered. But it was important that she did so and that some others did not. It showed that the others either really take the Presidents New found powers seriously to an absurd degree or that they did not even honor their originalist philosophy. Which is even more scary. Also. The justices that you are calling Maga isn’t a happy accident. Maga is just a word. The philosophy behind Maga already existed and is illustrated through these justices. The Maga view isn’t new. It has been kept at bay by the rest of us until now. I truly hope that others will begin to understand about originalism vs a living constitution. We will most likely be dealing with this type of court for a very long time. Our legislation and cases need to be written in a way that they can not deny. Which is very very difficult, if not impossible. Roe fell because it was based on a constitutional interpretation and precedent that they do not believe is legitimate. People need to understand this abd proceed accordingly. I hope you have more interviews about the constitution.
Thank you for talking about this. Originalism, Textualism, absolutely dangerous. And the threat will outlive Trump’s administration. People need to educate themselves on these philosophies.
Originalism is a ruse to avoid case law when it conflicts with a chosen political agenda.
yup
Yes
Originalism is absurd. The individual right to bear arms didn’t exist at all until 2008 and the Heller decision. Money in politics didn’t occur until 2010. Super PACs? Please.
I forget who pointed this out originally, but the founding fathers did not believe that black people were three-fifths of a person. They believed that black people were zero-fifths of a person, but white people should get three-fifths additional representation in Congress for owning them.
Where would so-called justice Thomas be in a world of the framers?
Tishnet held up his Black Nationalism as if it were sincere. Honestly, Thomas obtained notice and then his appointment not because he adheres to black nationalism but because he used black nationalist rhetoric to undermine reforms. Doing so he parrots white reactionary positions as if _any_ blacks benefit other then him. This is in line with his benefiting from affirmative action to gain entry to law school.
Am I foolishly simple minded to think that anything Trump and his criminal organization say and do, or want to do, is bad for me and the nation? I keep thinking that it can't be that simple. But it sure seems to be. At least 95% of the time anyway. So, no matter what, just say "No Donald. No, no, no!"
Fuck Originalism bullshit. “ The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of their Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
George Washington 1796
I’m not a lawyer, but if Originalism means what the words of the Constitution meant at the time of the documents creation; then why aren’t all guns today black powder single shot rifles, as they were back in 1785???
Wish there had been some talk of stari decisis. I feel that the current court has no respect at all for precedent.
It's disheartening to hear that there will be a Concervative majority on the Supreme Court for that long. To me, originalism is just a scapegoat to pursue power. Individual interpretation is always at play. Times have definitely changed since the Constitution was written. It's also time to add amendments, one that prevents such a vile and dangerous felon to run for President.
I am living in sweden can you send me the subskription in sek not in nok
Barrett’s SCOTUS decision was not a litmus test for whether she is changing. It was within her philosophy to vote that Trump has to pay for contract services already rendered. But it was important that she did so and that some others did not. It showed that the others either really take the Presidents New found powers seriously to an absurd degree or that they did not even honor their originalist philosophy. Which is even more scary. Also. The justices that you are calling Maga isn’t a happy accident. Maga is just a word. The philosophy behind Maga already existed and is illustrated through these justices. The Maga view isn’t new. It has been kept at bay by the rest of us until now. I truly hope that others will begin to understand about originalism vs a living constitution. We will most likely be dealing with this type of court for a very long time. Our legislation and cases need to be written in a way that they can not deny. Which is very very difficult, if not impossible. Roe fell because it was based on a constitutional interpretation and precedent that they do not believe is legitimate. People need to understand this abd proceed accordingly. I hope you have more interviews about the constitution.
Thank you for talking about this. Originalism, Textualism, absolutely dangerous. And the threat will outlive Trump’s administration. People need to educate themselves on these philosophies.
Just watch this. The ultimate evil elon, and idiot trump plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAcppizUztw