CMV: "What the Founders Intended" Doesn't Matter

This gets into weird judicial philosophies that different judges tend to have. The three currently represented on a Supreme Court are originalism, activism, and textualism.

These are going to be a massive oversimplifications.

Originalism suggests that in cases where the letter of the law is not clear, and precedent is not set, the most prudent course of action is to rule based on what you think the legislative intent was. Clarence Thomas followed this one pretty strictly, especially when it came to the constitution.

Activism suggests that in cases where the letter of the law is not clear, and precedent is not set, you can impose your own interpretation of the law, even if it deviates from the intent of the law. RBJ and Sotomayor fall into this camp.

Textualism suggests that the only thing that should be followed is the letter of the law, regardless of the legislative intent or consequences of a ruling. Gorsuch is a huge fan of this one, even if it got him into hot water a few times when he was on the 10th circuit. It's also the reason he seemingly switches back and forth between supporting the liberal and conservative judges.

The court's makeup and leanings toward these philosophies change, so how and when laws are interpreted can change based on the composition of the court itself.

/r/changemyview Thread Parent