[ad_1]
Today’s Originalist judges want to use text and history to evaluate a law’s meaning and/or its application to the facts at issue but discard the overarching originalist premise of judicial review-that it be modest, rare, and only exercised upon a showing of clear error.
In other words, Originalist judges aren’t really originalist because truly adhering to the original nature of judicial review would not allow them to as freely impose their personal values on the rest of us, and government officials do not like to give up their power. That hypocrisy is currently the coin of the realm of so-called originalist judges and justices.
—Law professor Eric Segall writing — with historical examples, that the actual founders would be loathe to use judicial review willy-nilly to impose a particular ideology… which is exactly what modern “originalists” are doing.
[ad_2]
