Amicus Live: How Originalism Captured the Court with Guest Sherrilyn Ifill
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- Slate’s Amicus podcast is a show about the law and the nine Supreme Court justices who interpret it for the rest of America. At this live taping, Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, and special guests civil rights lawyer and scholar Sherrilyn Ifill discuss how the court is using originalism-a controversial approach to interpreting the Constitution-to radically reshape the law. Just in time for yet another consequential term!
Dahlia and Mark are joined by legal analysts and leading critics of originalism, including a sitting state Supreme Court Judge, to explore the consequences of this theory when conservative justices apply it to overturn centuries of precedent, including the right to abortion and states’ ability to combat gun violence. They’ll also explore the possible pathways out of the current situation.
Check out more of Slate's Originalism content: slate.com/originalism
"Education, said the Supreme Court in Brown, is the most important function of state and local governments." Can someone please explain this to radical Conservatives who want to dismantle the public education system in this country.
Originalists: “I will interpret the Constitution according to what I say was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Let me cherry pick a line out of the Federalist Papers with zero context to prove my argument”
Sherilyn belongs on the Supreme Court.
Wherever Sherrelyn tells you to go, go there!
Such impressive woman, both, outrageously articulate, cogent, competent .. awesome!
I love this show. Amicus is my favorite podcast and I learn so much from it. Professor Ifill is so compelling and always provides deep, in-depth arguments and prospectives important to our nation and its citizens. Thank you so much.
Your discussion brings me back to a description of Kermit Roosevelt of the society that the 1st Constitution created and supported verses the 2nd Constitution created and supported. I may not be getting this completely correct but I would like to share where I landed from Professor Roosevelt book and that is.
The 1st Constitution supported a society of exclusive individualism that supported the individual objectives of landowners and excluded everyone else. Where, the 2nd Constitution supported a society of inclusive equality that supported men at its beginning but later included Blacks, Women and other excluded groups.
When you look at the two Constitutions in this way, you can distinguish not only the objectives of these two founding documents, you can also better distinguish our current struggle between the rich, white, cis, and little “c” christian Right and the progressive CRT, DE&I, LGTBQ, etc. supporting communities on the Left and Right.
Thank you again, and keep creating and sharing this content.
Ms. Ifill we sincerely appreciate your and your students excellent work for the Gravel Hill community. Salute!
Love this program....Thank You
That charge lead by Uncle Thomas Harlan Crow. Going right Brown V Board 52824
Very good comments and discussion
Due to the complete lack of judicial review and powers related to it, originalism is inherently completely self contradictory...
I love Prof Ifill! ❤ And she is always on point!
Why can't we put this lady on the supreme court?
Not only is this superbly educational in more ways than I can articulate, but I can't stop thinking of Gwen Ifill and how proud she is looking down on Sherrilyn. Thank you Sherrilyn for your wisdom, insights and scholarly view of our world at this very moment.
Go Sherilyn!!!!😊🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸
Exceptional and outstanding
Thank you for the hope!!!
Amen 🙏
Thank you 🙏 be in now, now.
All is not Some. Understand law One. Aim high, find a better way. Plenty for All here.
I'm not a lawyer, but, have been fascinated by law since I was 15 years old--between discovering great Black author James Baldwin and watching the Watergate hearings all day before I went to my first job at KFC. What always gets me about "originalism" is that it FREEZES the law in a long ago PAST. As if nothing has changed since 1789 (when Constitution was signed) or 1850s Dredd Scott pre-Civil War "Blacks have no rights that white people are bound to repsect" or the Civil War era Samuel Alito used to ban abortion. How can people say "Nothing ahs changed since the 18th or 19th century-"--or perhaps, they are saying that for everyone EXCEPT white, heterosexual "christian" men of wealth, nothing should change! The rest of us should be content to be 2nd class citizens or, in the case of Dobbs, "women are just carrying cases for fetuses--and even our lives are worth LESS than the POTENTIAL of fetus' life".
Seems like you don’t understand the concept of originalism at all. It’s not a theory of “nothing changed in society” or a theory of frozen law.
Rather, it is a theory of frozen MEANING: a legal text has the meaning it held at the time of enactment. It is a theory of INTERPRETATION.
This doesn’t exclude change in the law - laws can be amended, repealed, changed. Through the legislative process. Through constitutional amendment. NOT through reinterpretation.
Because that gives the power to amend and make law to unelected judges. It’s anti democratic and violates the separation of powers.
Originalism doesn’t oppose change through democratic means. Instead, it opposes change through undemocratic means - such as changing the meaning of a provision to something different than what it originally meant when passed.
If you agreed to a rent of 5 acorns in your lease, and your landlord unilaterally reinterprets 5 acorns to mean 10 acorns because of inflation, you would be crying that that was not the rent that was originally agreed.
Well, same concept with laws. One side doesn’t get to unilaterally change the terms of the social contract, or of legal provisions. It’s unfair. And usurps the lawmaking function of the people, whether through their democratic representatives in the legislature or through direct vote.
Originalism says: the law means what it originally meant until it is properly amended. And THAT amendment retains its own original meaning until repealed or amended. The 19th Amendment, for example, has the meaning it had at the time of enactment in 1919.
Any other approach would be to allow judges to amend the constitution through reinterpretation. And that violates the rule of law because the judge would usurp the lawmaking function.
Why would the Constitution contain the means of amendment through Article V if judges can simply evade its requirements by reinterpreting terms?
Do you really think the term “domestic violence” in Article IV, which, in historical context meant riots and insurrection and the like, should take on the modern meaning of “spousal abuse”? Absurd.
“I have a different originalist view,” she said at a 2011 legal conference. “I count myself as an originalist too, but in a quite different way,” than critics such as Justice Scalia, who argued the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause didn’t protect women. “Equality was the motivating idea, it was what the Declaration of Independence started with but it couldn’t come into the original Constitution because of the odious practice of slavery that was retained,” she said. - Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I agree with this statement but Roberts was right. You can't fix racism with more racism. Laws can only do so much and if one group sees another as catered to based on race it will only breed more problems.
3 great people!
Thats insane! . goes against progression? WTF?
WOW
Rights of black folks has been ignored in the past but nowit seems things are getting better for good reason since the two great men stood high for them and that's why this woman finchley talking
New Black Woman Standard %120+ 🎉
Long live MAGA