Justice Thomas's tendency to question things is delightfully refreshing. But when he does this, he often seems to not pay close enough attention to what got us to the immediate point. Gorsuch in many respects is much better at this, insofar as he will look case by case for how something evolved over time.
Originalism in many cases does not produce a single right answer, but rather limits the range of possible correct answers. This is is still a plenty justifiable basis for originalism.
I am an engineer. This discussion puts me in mind of a need for a decision tree and analog balancing test at most junctures. That of course works directly against the decision tree. Which is precisely what applying subjective judgments do to legal questions. So you wind up with an ambiguously worded law and subjectively interpreted opinions as to what the law requires. I am thankful most of my work tends to be bounded by laws of physics. Deeply thankful.
Another cogent clear interesting analysis of a complex issue I would otherwise not have understood but now am glad I do. Thanks
Justice Thomas's tendency to question things is delightfully refreshing. But when he does this, he often seems to not pay close enough attention to what got us to the immediate point. Gorsuch in many respects is much better at this, insofar as he will look case by case for how something evolved over time.
Originalism in many cases does not produce a single right answer, but rather limits the range of possible correct answers. This is is still a plenty justifiable basis for originalism.
I am an engineer. This discussion puts me in mind of a need for a decision tree and analog balancing test at most junctures. That of course works directly against the decision tree. Which is precisely what applying subjective judgments do to legal questions. So you wind up with an ambiguously worded law and subjectively interpreted opinions as to what the law requires. I am thankful most of my work tends to be bounded by laws of physics. Deeply thankful.