Way back in Episode 49, Andrew argued that lawyers who claim to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia-style originalism should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to be challenging Scalia’s acolytes (like Neil Gorsuch) on their underlying philosophy and not just their compassion (or lack thereof).
In this episode, friend of the show David Michael challenges some of the points made by Andrew in the original episode , as well as raises new ones. Along with Thomas, we have a great three-way discussion about U.S. history, the Federalist papers, key cases, the underlying work of Robert Bork, and more. Does Andrew change his mind? Does Thomas? Listen and find out!
After the lengthy interview, we end with the answer to an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to “send a message.” Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
None! Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- You can listen to our (ahem) original episode on originalism, Episode 49.
- Please also check out David Michael’s new podcast, The Quorum!
- Here’s a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers.
- United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both “cruel” and “unusual in the Constitutional sense.”
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org