How Different Judges Interpret the Constitution

Подписаться 11 тыс.

50% 1

Judge Edmund Sargus from the Southern District of Ohio joins Sarah and David to take on originalism and different means of constitutional interpretation.
The Agenda:
-Brown v. Board of Education and the different judicial philosophies that can be applied to the case
-Originalism vs. common law traditionalism
-Challenges and limitations of textualism and originalism
-Landmark cases and the Supreme Court’s decisions shaping societal progress
To get show notes:
00:00
Introduction and the Appeal of Podcasting
02:10
Different Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation
11:44
Examining Brown v. Board of Education through Originalism and Common Law Traditionalism
13:42
The Interaction Between Textualism and Originalism
26:35
The Impact of Landmark Cases
27:33
Challenges of Interpreting Ambiguous Constitutional Terms
28:16
Exploring Originalism and Good vs. Bad Originalism
30:06
The Trouble with Ambiguous Constitutional Terms
34:20
The Role of Precedent in Common Law
39:42
The Practicality of Common Law
41:03
Differences in Interpreting Ambiguous Text
45:09
The Second Amendment: Originalism vs. Common Law
48:14
Strengths and Limitations of Originalism and Common Law
#constitution #judge #law #politics #conservative

Опубликовано:

25 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 6

@Kyzyl_Tuva 4 месяца назад

This was one of my all-time favorites. Thank you Sarah and David.

@MIKAEL212345 4 месяца назад

I am unconvinced by Judge Edmund Sargus alternative to originalism. I really enjoyed Sarah's point about different levels of generality

@jem7636 4 месяца назад

None of the framers of the constitution envisioned a judiciary so powerful. John Quincy Adams was appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court while returning from Russia but declined the position. Sometimes Presidents would offer an appointment to multiple people before finding someone who accepted. Senator Conklin was nominated by Arthur and confirmed but turned down the job. Cleveland's first choice to replace Waite (John Scholfield) turned down the job because he didn't want to move to DC. The mode of argument before the Supreme Court was very different. Read the John Quincy Adams pleading in the Amistad case. It was presented over seven hours uninterrupted. Should originalist judges grant cert for every case? Should they hear cases in the Capitol basement (the old chamber is still there)? Should they ride horses to work? Should they require a law degree to argue a case? Should courts that do not want to return to old modes of work require the other branches to in the case of regulatory agencies?

@salex5412 4 месяца назад

I recommend John Adams' A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787). Adams pounds the drum repeatedly for a strong judiciary. In fact a strong and separate judicial branch is to John Adams (not JQA) the magic bullet of constitutional government. Whether Adams would have been an advocate of so strong a judiciary as the Taney Court, we'll never know. One could argue that John Adams got what he asked for, just not the outcome he would have wanted.

@jem7636 4 месяца назад

@@salex5412 John Adams was very upset when his son turned down the job. The federalists were more fond of the judiciary than the democrats like Jefferson

@Gittens77 4 месяца назад

Why does social progress matter when interpreting the constitution. The purpose of the document is to limit the power of the majority, so why would its meaning be dependent on the views of that majority.