Posted on Jul 4, 2022
Originalism: The legal theory guiding conservative Supreme Court justices, explained
1.68K
37
14
7
7
0
Last month, the Supreme Court handed down closely watched rulings in several cases that included ending the constitutional right to an abortion, expanding the right to carry guns and limiting Environmental Protection Agency's powers to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
All of these rulings were led by the conservative supermajority on the court, who were guided by the niche judicial philosophy known as "originalism." What is this theory? Where does it come from? And what could this philosophy mean for the future of the United State of America?
All of these rulings were led by the conservative supermajority on the court, who were guided by the niche judicial philosophy known as "originalism." What is this theory? Where does it come from? And what could this philosophy mean for the future of the United State of America?
Originalism: The legal theory guiding conservative Supreme Court justices, explained
Posted from wbur.org
Supreme Court
Law
Conservative
Philosophy
Rights
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 4
7
7
0
Have you dealt with the EPA? They will lie to your face. Federal bureaucrats think they are dictators welding the power of government like a bludgeon. When caught nothing happens to them. The EPA has NO power to expand laws or write laws. Congress needs to do its job.
(7)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Same goes for Congressional Staffers. Essentially anything inside the beltway operates like that.
(3)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - have you ever dealt with the EPA? They are dangerous. The EPA caused massive pollution in a river in Colorado, harassed the hell out of citizens and is a general pain in the rear. Oh, if you get hauled to EPA court or wish to contest an EPA ruling in Georgia you have to go to Atlanta.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
When our Constitution was ratified, we had less than 4 million citizens. We presently have 330+ million. Any governing document must be "live" and be able to change with the times. Now, please do not claim the constitution can be changed, because in today's political environment, that will never happen.
We must remember why and for what our Constitution was designed:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution"
How can we fulfill those promises without a government and laws?
We must remember why and for what our Constitution was designed:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution"
How can we fulfill those promises without a government and laws?
(5)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
CPT Lawrence Cable - Trump does not know a damn thing about the working class or middle America, but I see he fooled you like millions of others.
Now, since this thread is about "originalism" of the constitution, and you mentioned "super majority", then please show me where it says anything about that, except in the following:
In the U.S. Congress, several major legislative actions require a supermajority vote, most notably impeaching the president, declaring a president incapable of serving under the 25th Amendment, and amending the Constitution.
The rest are just temporary rules which can be changed.
Now, since this thread is about "originalism" of the constitution, and you mentioned "super majority", then please show me where it says anything about that, except in the following:
In the U.S. Congress, several major legislative actions require a supermajority vote, most notably impeaching the president, declaring a president incapable of serving under the 25th Amendment, and amending the Constitution.
The rest are just temporary rules which can be changed.
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
MSG Stan Hutchison - Article V? Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
It either requires a 2/3rd's majority of both houses and approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an Amendment. That is a super majority.
Trump's business was tied to the construction industry, so he was in contact with union workers, company owners, and the various people that worked for those industries and those in the hospitality industry. Whether he was sincere are not isn't the point, he at least verbalized the concerns of "flyover America", and none of the Mainstream candidates from either side were doing it. Look at the choices that segment has had since 2000. Republican Light candidates like Bush, McCain and Romney? Not enough difference to make me want to vote for either party (I did vote against John Kerry, whom I detest).
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
It either requires a 2/3rd's majority of both houses and approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an Amendment. That is a super majority.
Trump's business was tied to the construction industry, so he was in contact with union workers, company owners, and the various people that worked for those industries and those in the hospitality industry. Whether he was sincere are not isn't the point, he at least verbalized the concerns of "flyover America", and none of the Mainstream candidates from either side were doing it. Look at the choices that segment has had since 2000. Republican Light candidates like Bush, McCain and Romney? Not enough difference to make me want to vote for either party (I did vote against John Kerry, whom I detest).
(1)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
CPT Lawrence Cable - Yes, the Constitution addresses super majority for amending it, plus the other issues I mentioned. It does not require a super majority for passing other bills or even confirming appointments. That is only a Senate rule, which can and often is changed.
As for Trump, if one looks at his bankruptcy records and his screwing over suppliers and workers, you would see he is not a friend of the working man.
As for Trump, if one looks at his bankruptcy records and his screwing over suppliers and workers, you would see he is not a friend of the working man.
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
MSG Stan Hutchison - Even Warren Buffet has filed more than one Bankruptcy. It's how you close out a losing business. Outside of having to find another job, bankruptcy doesn't affect the wage earners much, I've been on that side of the coin through two of them.
Things are jambed at the top because they try to shove a one size fits all solution down the throat of a Country that spans 6 time zones, not including some minor ones. That is the reason for State Legislatures, where things generally work somewhat better.
Things are jambed at the top because they try to shove a one size fits all solution down the throat of a Country that spans 6 time zones, not including some minor ones. That is the reason for State Legislatures, where things generally work somewhat better.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."Along the way, we discuss the right’s decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court’s next term and more."...
..."Along the way, we discuss the right’s decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court’s next term and more."...
(5)
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
SGT Charlie Lee; PO1 William "Chip" Nagel - I'm waiting for a miscegeny case to come onto the docket. Can't wait to hear the "originalism" on that issue from Thomas. Oh wait, he didn't list the Loving case in his latest screed. Hmmmmm, have no idea why since it's based on the same equal protection and privacy sections used for the other cases he wants overturned. Guess he must have forgotten about that case.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google