@A__Shoesmaker I’m not going to link to the Wikipedia article on Originalism (since it is an obvious path to look up and not needing a unique link), however I wanted to post this screengrab that helped direct some of my digging. There are two main schools of thought on originalism, it seems.
@A__Shoesmaker I think original intent is what most (myself included) take as a knee jerk response to someone who practices originalism.
“You’re taking the constitution verbatim and not interpreting at all?”
It sounds like this stance is a minority viewpoint in that theory.
@A__Shoesmaker Here is a student written piece from Notre Dame (yes, I believe that one) about ACB from 2018 that addresses this distinction as well:
Pieces like this are wonderful time capsules, I might add.
@A__Shoesmaker So, I’ll try to balance the next couple links out because I really don’t want it to seem like this is a defense of the theory, just an explanation (and most likely woefully incomplete and inadequate).
@A__Shoesmaker This is an “idea” piece from Time (I’m assuming their corollary to opinion pieces) from Neil Gorsuch. Yes, he was nominated by Trump for associate justice in 2017, two years before this. I think the points he cites highlight the Original Meaning theory.
The biggest pause I had with Originalism (and many critics have) are regarding women and POC. Are their rights valid under the Originalist theory?
@A__Shoesmaker Based on what I’ve read, it sounds like Originalism can have quite a “wide net,” according to the woman in the hot seat herself, and is not as conservative at first blush. The danger arrives in how closely we adhere and acknowledge the flaws at the time of its framing.