Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SARose

(830 posts)
Wed Jun 19, 2024, 11:55 AM Jun 2024

The Supreme Court's approach on 'history and tradition' is irking Amy Coney Barrett

By Devan Cole and John Fritze, CNN
Updated 10:15 AM EDT, Wed June 19, 2024

Washington
CNN

On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a guide, a dispute may be simmering over how many modern cases can be resolved by looking to the nation’s past.

Though Justice Clarence Thomas’ decision in a major trademark case last week was unanimous, it prompted a sharp debate led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett over the use of history to decide the case.

Barrett, the newest conservative on the court, accused Thomas, the most senior associate justice, of a “laser-like focus on the history” that “misses the forest for the trees.”

The back-and-forth could signal a recalibration by some members of the court of how and when to apply originalism, the dominant legal doctrine among the court’s conservatives that demands the Constitution be interpreted based on its original meaning.

Snip

More

Color me shocked!

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court's approach on 'history and tradition' is irking Amy Coney Barrett (Original Post) SARose Jun 2024 OP
I am... Mike Nelson Jun 2024 #1
Fractures means lots of 5-4 RANDYWILDMAN Jun 2024 #2
She is right. I can tell by listening to them argue, that all pwb Jun 2024 #3
Who Would Have Thought Deep State Witch Jun 2024 #4
The history and tradition and reality for the Founders who were living in ... sanatanadharma Jun 2024 #5
Well said! SARose Jun 2024 #6
Under originalism the 2nd amendment CanonRay Jun 2024 #7

Mike Nelson

(10,301 posts)
1. I am...
Wed Jun 19, 2024, 11:58 AM
Jun 2024

... sorry she feels "irked." I am much more sorry for the victims of her deplorable Supreme Court decisions.

RANDYWILDMAN

(2,906 posts)
2. Fractures means lots of 5-4
Wed Jun 19, 2024, 12:00 PM
Jun 2024

what a joke this court is.

Under originalism, Coney and Clarence should recuse themselves from the court and RETIRE since they themselves could not be justices, when the constitution was written...

pwb

(12,202 posts)
3. She is right. I can tell by listening to them argue, that all
Wed Jun 19, 2024, 12:01 PM
Jun 2024

the do is change the message with word play.

sanatanadharma

(4,074 posts)
5. The history and tradition and reality for the Founders who were living in ...
Wed Jun 19, 2024, 01:42 PM
Jun 2024

The history and tradition and reality for the Founders who were living in, what was then and always is for all times, the most modern of times.
The revolution and the Constitution were not based upon, nor rooted in the past. America is built upon the future.
Nobody has ever lived in any epoch other that the most modern of times.
Seeking to limit the now to what-it-was in the past will putrefy the present; and that is a terrible present to give to the future.

CanonRay

(14,886 posts)
7. Under originalism the 2nd amendment
Wed Jun 19, 2024, 02:06 PM
Jun 2024

means your ownership of flintlock rifles and black powder pistols cannot be abridged.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»The Supreme Court's appro...