Context: I am re-reading Roberts Court decisions to understand how originalists/formalists keep repeating the same historical errors.
By relying on precedent and not actual historical materials, they literally repeat the same errors.
Well, what about Roe v. Wade as precedent?
By relying on precedent and not actual historical materials, they literally repeat the same errors.
Well, what about Roe v. Wade as precedent?
https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1445153404968443905
2/ The opening page of Roberts's "historical analysis" in Seila.
1 quote from Madison (who was spinning his own legislative strategy)
1 quote from President Washington in favor of presidential power (surprise.)
Otherwise, 6 citations to Free Enterprise, Bowsher, Hennen & Myers.
1 quote from Madison (who was spinning his own legislative strategy)
1 quote from President Washington in favor of presidential power (surprise.)
Otherwise, 6 citations to Free Enterprise, Bowsher, Hennen & Myers.
3/ Here's the next page of historical evidence about 1787-89:
The 1st paragraph is all from Myers (1926)
The 2d paragraph is Roberts quoting himself in Free Enterprise (2010).
Zero original sources for an originalist argument.
The 1st paragraph is all from Myers (1926)
The 2d paragraph is Roberts quoting himself in Free Enterprise (2010).
Zero original sources for an originalist argument.
4/ When I say "historical errors," I don't mean subjective differences of interpretation.
I mean clear factual errors.
Roberts claims a majority in the First Congress endorsed unitary theory.
False. The House rejected it by over 30 to 16.
Evidence:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
I mean clear factual errors.
Roberts claims a majority in the First Congress endorsed unitary theory.
False. The House rejected it by over 30 to 16.
Evidence:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
