How Originalism Ate The Law: What We Can Do About It | Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law,...
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2024
- In the third and final part of our How Originalism Ate the Law series, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Justice Todd Eddins of the Hawaii Supreme Court and Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap. Being trapped by originalism is a choice, one that judges, lawyers, and the American people do not have to accede to. Our expert panel offers ideas and action points for pushing back against a mode of constitutional interpretation that has had deadly consequences. And they answer questions from our listeners.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Note: Captions are auto-generated by CZcams.
Follow Amicus on CZcams: • The Trump Indictment |...
Subscribe to Slate: / slate
Learn more: slate.com/podcasts/amicus
Follow Slate on Social:
Host Dahlia Lithwick on Twitter: / dahlialithwick
Slate on Twitter - / slate
Slate Podcasts on Twitter - / slatepodcasts
Slate on Facebook: / slate
Slate on Instagram: / slate
Thank you.
Excellent. Many thanks. 💙
Such an important series. Thank you!
Every architect knows that the house that he/she designs will likely have rooms or even whole sections added to it by future owners. Every auto manufacturer knows that the engines they install in vehicles will have new parts installed during the life of the vehicle. Human beings themselves change over time; ie infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old age. Why would a nation's constitution be any different?
This is an INCREDIBLE conversation !!
Thank you ALL 🙏🏽
I have HOPE that I didn't have before I listened to this
Old Leftist in Alabama 🔵🟥
(Yeah. Alabama. 🙄)
If you always go backwards to choose how to adjudicate today it should be by looking at the consequences.
The lack of judicial review in the Constitution makes the entire idea of originalism self contradictory
How is it "Original" to ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment (the first 13 of its 27 words), the part that establishes its "militia" context and meaning?
It just follows the usual form of defining the constitution to mean whatever your "patrons" need or want it to... It also changes constantly evidently from moment to moment to meet the need.... It's a ruse.
They don't ignore it. You ignore what the words meant at the time. You also ignore the word "people" as in the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" You also ignore the word "infringed." Please do not pretend you are anything but liars.
There is NO JUDICIAL REVIEW (overturning of laws) in the constitution. So how do they justify doing THAT UNDER ORIGINALISM?
Peopl like you will find judicial review when you want to overturn any law you don't like. It's pathetically transparent at this point.
Ugh.