,
10 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ 11th Circuit En Banc Court splits on application of Terry rule. The majority and dissent also disagree about the appropriate use of originalism in the inferior courts. media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f… 
2/ The defendant argued that court should construe Terry narrowly, based on Justice Scalia's originalist position.
3/ The majority opinion (W. Pryor) contends that "when 'a precedent of [the Supreme] Court has direct application,' we must follow it."
3/ Judge W. Pryor adds, that the Defendant would not like a truly originalist jurisprudence, because the exclusionary rule would not apply. And the court declines to apply "halfway originalism."
4/ Judge Jordan writes a forceful response to the majority, and originalism itself. He cites to J. Scalia, J. Thomas, @RandyEBarnett, @RichardAEpstein Ed Meese, Steve Calabresi, Robert Bork, Raoul Berger, Michael McConnell, and others
5/ J. Jordan writes that Terry, even if binding precedent, need not be extended to "an issue of first impression."
6/ How should the circuit court deal with "a precedent whose pedigree is questionable." He cites @RichardAEpstein: "decline to broaden it," even "one inch."
7/ J. Jordan argues that the majority is engaging in "halfway originalism"
8/ J. Jordan also argues that the circuit courts are bound by the exclusionary rule, but are not bound to extend Terry.
9/ J. Jordan closes with an attack on originalism itself: a charge that originalists are hypocritical: "Time will tell whether originalism, in one of its various forms, will continue to make ad hoc appearances in the opinions of this court."
