.@espinsegall in the ACS Expert Forum Blog: Judge Amy Coney Barrett stated during her confirmation hearings that she's an originalist, which is meaningless as it relates to interpretation, but suggests that she'll consistently cast conservative votes acslaw.org/expertforum/ju… (1/9)
There are conservative, moderate and liberal judges, but there are no originalist judges, Professor Segall argues (2/9)
In the 1970s and 80s, originalists like Robert Bork were opposed to judges overturning state & federal law absent a clear inconsistency with constitutional text (3/9)
After years of conservative judges being appointed by Republican administrations, originalist calls for judicial deference changed to justifications for aggressive originalist judicial review of state & especially federal laws (4/9)
Judges began resorting to discussions of constitutional history only when doing so supported the results they wanted on other grounds (5/9)
Judge Barrett’s originalism has nothing to do with deferring to legislative majorities and everything to do with reaching conservative policy results, Segall argues (6/9)
True originalist judges would have to adopt a strong deferential stance towards state & federal laws because that was the original understanding of the power of judicial review, Segall points out, citing Federalist No. 78 (7/9)
Therefore, according to him, Judge Barrett’s alleged commitment to originalism is an empty promise devoid of constraining effect (8/9)
Read more from our ACS Expert Forum blog post by @espinsegall acslaw.org/expertforum/ju… (9/9)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
