This article—which points out mistakes in conservative scholarship promoting the "unitary executive" theory—illustrates a major problem with originalism. No one likes to admit error, especially not judges. And there's no incentive for acknowledging that you read history wrong.
A new paper: \u201cRemoval of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, and the Limits of Unitary Originalism,\u201d Yale J. Law & Humanities, 2022.
— Jed Shugerman (@jedshug) November 30, 2021
I found many errors in unitary executive amicus & scholarship on Blackstone & other historical sources. Thread:https://t.co/kUMAwfFY5K
https://t.co/PSTuOC6qRB
Isn't it illustrative of why originalism MUST be coupled with a weak form of stare decisis? Originalism claims to be falsifiable, and a strong view of SD entrenches rules based on bad history, when it is precisely originalist opinions' historic accuracy that gives them authoriry.
— Jimmy Buffett Fan, Esq. (@jimmy_esq) December 6, 2021
You May Also Like
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?