'Rigged, dishonest bunk': Why liberal lawyers should fight back against this 'fringe legal theory'

'Rigged, dishonest bunk': Why liberal lawyers should fight back against this 'fringe legal theory'

As president, Donald Trump vowed to only nominate socially conservative Supreme Court justices who embraced an “originalist” philosophy of jurisprudence, pointing to Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia as the sort of justices he favored. Some right-wing Republican-appointed High Court justices, although fiscally conservative, turned out to be socially liberal when it came to issues like abortion and gay rights — for example, retired libertarian Justice Anthony Kennedy. Trump, however, wasn’t looking for the next Kennedy.

Trump was looking for the next Thomas or Scalia. And the three justices he appointed (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) have been hailed by Fox News pundits as examples of “originalism” or “textualism” in action.

But one media figure who is highly critical of “originalist” or “textualist” ideology is Washington Post opinion columnist Ruth Marcus. In her December 1 column, Marcus slams “originalism” as painfully flawed and warns “liberal lawyers” against buying into it.

READ MORE:The Supreme Court is dirty. Time to clean it up

“Liberal lawyers — and liberal justices, for that matter — risk being caught in an originalism trap,” Marcus explains. “Originalism, the belief that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed at the time it was adopted, is the legal theory that dominates the thinking of this conservative Supreme Court. Not all of the conservative justices are committed originalists. I count four of the six — all but Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and perhaps Samuel A. Alito Jr., who describes himself as a ‘practical originalist.’ But they have all written or joined originalist rulings.”

Marcus continues, “Given that reality, liberals can’t lightly dismiss conservatives’ insistence that the Constitution should be interpreted based strictly on the original meaning of its text. In the current circumstances, liberal advocates appearing before the Court would be remiss not to make an originalist case. But there’s also little evidence, at least in the highest-profile cases, that it will do them much good.”

According to Marcus, “liberal lawyers” who try to use “originalist” arguments to make their case are not competing in a “fair fight” but rather, are up against “conservative justices” who will “cherry-pick competing originalist interpretations that comport with their underlying inclinations.”

“The more liberals present originalist arguments, the more they legitimate originalism rather than refuting it and offering a compelling alternative,” Marcus warns. “Courtroom advocates need to win the case at hand, yet that undermines the more critical long-term effort to wrench the Court away from its reliance on what is, at least as currently practiced, a flawed doctrine that peddles the illusion of impartiality in the service of a conservative result.”

READ MORE: Right-wing Supreme Court justices are dragging the court deeper into a 'crisis of legitimacy': Missouri editorial

Marcus continues, “Because originalism purports to freeze our understanding of the Constitution as written at the end of the 18th Century or amended in the second half of the 19th, it is skewed to a cramped reading of the document, unleavened by modern science and sensibilities. Why should we understand — much less accept — the constitutional meaning as fixed at a time when women lacked the right to vote, when recently enslaved Black people attended segregated schools, when the economy was agrarian, and when the notion of gay rights was unthinkable?”

Originalism, according to Marcus, was a “fringe legal theory” when it started to emerge in the early 1970s as a “reaction to the perceived excesses of the Warren Court.” And she urges “liberal” attorneys and judges to “push back” against originalism rather than pretending that a “flawed approach” has merit.

“Conviction, however sincere, does not make a flawed approach legitimate,” Marcus writes. “And the flaws embedded in originalism are magnified by its use, or misuse, by conservative justices and judges focused on a desired outcome. This brand of originalism isn’t just bunk — it’s rigged, dishonest bunk. The more forcefully liberal lawyers and justices push back on it — the faster they make their way out of the originalism trap — the better.”

READ MORE: Why Samuel Alito’s 'militant Christianity' is a 'problem for the rest of us': journalist

Understand the importance of honest news ?

So do we.

The past year has been the most arduous of our lives. The Covid-19 pandemic continues to be catastrophic not only to our health - mental and physical - but also to the stability of millions of people. For all of us independent news organizations, it’s no exception.

We’ve covered everything thrown at us this past year and will continue to do so with your support. We’ve always understood the importance of calling out corruption, regardless of political affiliation.

We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, no matter the amount, makes a difference in allowing our newsroom to bring you the stories that matter, at a time when being informed is more important than ever. Invest with us.

Make a one-time contribution to Alternet All Access, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

Click to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card
Donate by Paypal
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}
@2022 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.