Share this page!

Adil Haque Profile picture
Twitter logo
5 Nov, 7 tweets, 2 min read
Original Generous Purposive Contextual Large and Liberal Originalism (TM)
Original No Rigid Hierarchy Among Interpretative Guides Originalism (TM)
Lol "courts ought 'not to read the provisions of the Constitution like a last will and testament lest it become one."
Original How Dare You Call Us Textualists Ew Gross Originalism (TM)
Original Continuing Framework For Legitimate Exercise of Governmental Power And Unremitting Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties Originalism (TM)
Reductio ad Hellerium
U.S.:
Liberals: Maybe some international law is relevant sometimes.
Conservatives: No, none, never.

Canada:
Liberals: All international law is relevant to everything.
Conservatives: All international law is relevant, but in different ways to different things.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Adil Haque

Adil Haque Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdHaque110

Adil Haque Profile picture
21 Oct
Supports my sense that, when original meaning is ambiguous, Barrett will adopt neither a presumption of constitutionality, nor a presumption of liberty. The best understanding controls.
Did Mitch Berman write this question?
Supports my sense that Barrett's Kanter dissent took a disjunctive approach: gun regulations are constitutional if they are either historically rooted or satisfy the relevant level of scrutiny (strict, in that case).
Read 20 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
12 Oct
1. Barrett likely thinks that compliance with international law is not the concern of the judiciary.
2. In 2010, Barrett strongly indicated that she rejects the Charming Betsy canon, that is, "the rule that where one
interpretation of a statute would compromise the international obligations of the United States, the court should adopt any other plausible interpretation."
3. Why? Because compliance with international law is a policy value, rather than a constitutional value. And policy questions are for the legislature (and presumably the executive), not for the judiciary.
Read 6 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
12 Oct
1. Interestingly, Barrett probably agrees. In 2010, Barrett accepted that statutory textualism was not dictated by original meaning/understanding or historical practice.

scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewconten…
2. At that time, Barrett argued that courts are "faithful agents" of the legislature, and textualism best preserves legislative compromises. Later, her view changed.
3. In 2017, Barrett argued that courts are faithful agents of the people, and that fairness to the people requires interpreting statutes according to their public meaning.

lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawrevie…
Read 5 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
12 Oct
1. This is excellent. But.

Yes, Barrett thinks most super-precedents will never come to the Court. Paper money is safe, etc.

But, Barrett shares "the [originalist] commitment to treat the constitutional text as controlling when the question is called." scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten…
2. Yes, Barrett thinks overruling precedent requires “both reason giving on the merits and an explanation of why its view is so compelling as to warrant reversal.”

But, its view only needs to be compelling to fellow originalists ("methodological friends" in the literature).
3. Finally, I haven't seen Barrett endorse a particular standard for reversal, like "demonstrably erroneous." My sense from her later writings is that the most plausible reading controls. But this is an inference from her view that original meaning *is* the law.
Read 4 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
24 Sep
1. The Kentucky AG says: "According to Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Miss Breonna Taylor's death."

This is incorrect. THREAD.

courier-journal.com/story/news/loc…
2. Under the Kentucky Penal Code (503.120), self-defense is unavailable as a justification in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward innocent persons.

apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/s…
3. Even if Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in defending themselves against Walker, they may have wantonly or recklessly injured or risked injury to Taylor.

Self-defense does not preclude charging them accordingly.
Read 6 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
23 Sep
Inclusive legal positivists just letting morality right into the criteria of legal validity

Moral facts absolutely determining legal facts rn
Legal facts are just moral facts at this point
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @AdHaque110