How did the Justices leverage modes of interpretation this past term? This article uses empirical measures to track just how much originalism, pragmatism and more were applied in majority opinions.
Still, I find it startling that, in CASA say, the Court invokes Originalism when, in the 18th Century, people would be horrified at a decision written by a woman AND a cultish papist.
That said, another thought-provoking delve.
Egad! Such deep reflections so early on a Sunday morning! To quote fight promoter Joe Jacobs, “I shoulda stood in bed.”
I guess I’ve played my role well.
Still, I find it startling that, in CASA say, the Court invokes Originalism when, in the 18th Century, people would be horrified at a decision written by a woman AND a cultish papist.
Interpretation is often relative to the interpreter.
Selective, in other words?
To be fair on all sides. Often acts as a preferred outcome rationale. Sometimes post hoc
Okay … but I would really like this Court to be fair on all sides as well.
Fair is also relative. My idea of fair may differ from yours, etc. Depends on who is in power and who is seeking equity.
Sadly I am eternally fair - and inevitably right - but sorely lacking in power. What gives?
That's very kind Jonathane. I hope these articles continue to spark your interest.