2 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Harvey Kravetz's avatar

Can you say originalist? Judicial decisions can be made either by strict interpretation of the law as written or with an understanding of the time it was written and whether it would apply given the changes in society. A perfect example is how the 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted.

Expand full comment
Don Klemencic's avatar

A. "strict interpretation of the law as written"

B. "with an understanding of the time it was written and whether it would apply given the changes in society"

Harvey, I queried the term "originalist" online and it seems to have a meaning not quite captured by either of your choices for judicial decisions. Wikipedia says "Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption. Originalists object to the idea of the significant legal evolution being driven by judges in a common law framework and instead favor modifications of laws through the Legislature or through Constitutional amendment."

A. Your "as written" option misses the requirement of "the original understanding at the time of adoption".

B. Your "and whether it would apply given the changes in society" option allows a rational flexibility that seems to be explicitly rejected by originalism.

Expand full comment