Seems to me that it is preferable to have some framework rather than none, even if inconsistently applied (at least you have something to measure against and criticize). Otherwise, you are just making things up. And by a small group of people no less. Claiming the Constitution is "living" runs a great risk of just making things up and thwarting the amendment process.
That's what happened with Roe. Although the article mentions this, it seems to ignore that the modern resurgence of originalism was a direct response to the "penumbra" of Roe. Well, that and the protests that broke out on the Supreme Court's steps hoping to influence what the vote couldn't bring.
GftNC, if originalism is "insane," what do you suggest?
Btw, I think of Scalia more of a textualist first and foremost. I lean textualist as far as that can get you, originalist after that.
Lj: "an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations."
Interesting thought, especially in light of Dobbs. Trying to bring back discussion of the rights of the unborn at the federal level are we?
Seems to me that it is preferable to have some framework rather than none, even if inconsistently applied (at least you have something to measure against and criticize). Otherwise, you are just making things up. And by a small group of people no less. Claiming the Constitution is "living" runs a great risk of just making things up and thwarting the amendment process.
That's what happened with Roe. Although the article mentions this, it seems to ignore that the modern resurgence of originalism was a direct response to the "penumbra" of Roe. Well, that and the protests that broke out on the Supreme Court's steps hoping to influence what the vote couldn't bring.
GftNC, if originalism is "insane," what do you suggest?
Btw, I think of Scalia more of a textualist first and foremost. I lean textualist as far as that can get you, originalist after that.
Lj: "an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations."
Interesting thought, especially in light of Dobbs. Trying to bring back discussion of the rights of the unborn at the federal level are we?