Monday, October 12, 2020

The Myth of the Originalist Judge

 By Eric Segall

When the Senate begins its confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett today, she will no doubt identify herself as an originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation. Her mentor, Justice Scalia, was famous for preaching originalism as the best method for deciding constitutional law cases, as have current Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. But all these justices as well as Judge Barrett are selling snake oil because there is no such thing as an originalist judge. What these judges are actually doing is hiding their personal value judgments behind a false veneer of history. There are conservative judges, liberal judges, and moderate judges, but there are no originalist judges.

Justices Scalia and Thomas struck down over a hundred laws over their careers without any sound originalist basis. Here are representative examples: They both voted to strike down every affirmative action law they faced based on a principle of color-blindness that is not in the Constitution and unsupportable as a matter of the 14th Amendment’s original meaning. They both voted to strike down campaign finance law after campaign finance law even though the First Amendment’s original meaning does not support such overreaching. They both claim the Second Amendment’s original meaning includes a private right to own guns despite the assessments of most historians that the Amendment had nothing to do with self-defense in the home or hunting. And they both voted to strike down the key section of the Voting Rights Act based on a principle that Congress has to have a strong reason for treating different states differently that is not in the Constitution’s text and completely inconsistent with the history of the Reconstruction Amendments. I could go on and on listing such cases, which have in common conservative results, not persuasive conclusions about the Constitution’s original meaning.

How about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? In their short times as Justices, they both voted to strike down state laws that treated religious schools differently than secular schools based on a principle that hamstrings the ability of states to avoid separation of church and state concerns and which is in no way justified by the first amendment’s original meaning. They also both voted to strike down 23 state laws requiring nonunion public sector workers to pay union fees if they were covered by collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the union; a Minnesota law that prohibited the wearing of political apparel in voting places; and a California law that required “pregnancy crisis centers” to post information regarding state abortion services. None of those cases can be justified by reference to the Constitution’s original meaning, and the various authors of those opinions did not even seriously try to do so.

Judge Barrett has only a few years behind her on the bench but she already voted (in dissent) to strike down an Illinois law barring non-violent felons from owning guns—a holding which has no sound basis in the Second Amendment’s original meaning. “Judges are not policy makers,” she assured us when introduced by President Trump, except for when they are, which is regularly. Here she wanted to overturn a perfectly legitimate, important, and potentially life-saving Illinois statute on the basis of selective and cherry-picked historical sources to justify a conclusion almost certainly reached before her analysis of history began.

We can all agree that where the Constitution is clear, such as the requirement that the President be thirty-five or that each state must be represented by two senators, judges must follow the text. But most constitutional cases do not involve these kinds of provisions. Instead, constitutional litigation requires judges to interpret broad and imprecise aspirations like freedom of speech, equal protection of the laws, due process of law, and the bars on unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments. Neither these vague texts nor the history behind them can provide answers to most litigated cases. 

For example, originalism cannot tell us whether politicians may block people on their social media websites, as President Trump wants to do; whether lethal injections currently used by many states to kill convicted murderers are cruel and unusual punishments; or whether racial preferences used by public universities that used to be all white violate the equal protection clause. There is nothing in 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, nor 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, that can help with any of those questions, or similar ones that are litigated on a regular basis, because so much has changed in our country and most originalists now admit that judges are allowed to take into account those changes when deciding how to apply imprecise text to new questions. That concession, which provides judges enormous discretion to decide which changed facts matter and which do not, dooms originalism as a serious method of constitutional interpretation both in theory and in practice.

Self-proclaimed originalists such as Judge Barrett know that in 1868 women had no constitutional right to vote, were essentially the property of their husbands--and gays, lesbians, and, of course, transgender folk, were completely invisible to the law. Any modern cases involving alleged discrimination against those groups cannot be aided by looking at the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was understood in 1868. To suggest otherwise is complete foolishness. Too much has changed, for the better of course, when it comes to these groups, and these changes were not anticipated by the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Reconstruction Amendments.

Judge Barrett also knows that the firepower of guns today has little in common with what such “arms” could do at the Founding. Laws that restrict the sale of assault weapons or that require special permits to carry such weapons or that prohibit felons from owning guns simply cannot be addressed through historical investigation but only by balancing the government’s interests in public safety against the Second Amendment rights asserted by the plaintiffs. But that balancing can only be done by looking at modern guns and our country today, not the world of the Founding, and that is why originalism is impossible in such a case despite what Judge Barret might say.

As I have written elsewhere, judges and politicians use the label “originalist” to identify as conservatives, libertarians, or both, and to hide the personal value judgments that inevitably lie behind their constitutional law votes. Judge Barrett will be (already has been) no exception. Although I agree with Mike that the Senators should not address her directly for all the reasons he gave in his fine post on the subject, the Senators should call out all the GOP nominees who have self-identified as originalists, noting that judges don't decide cases according to history but their personal politics and values, because on the ground where it matters, there are no originalist judges.


Joe said...

I read Judge Sutton's book promoting a stronger use of state constitutional law [suppose the writer here appreciated him opening up with a basketball metaphor] and he cited three basic forms of constitutional interpretation -- originalism, living constitutionalism and pragmatism.

Since "originalism" is a sort of Calvinball, I'm not sure if there is "none" of them. What does that even mean? Prof. Segall can provide a basic meaning there and show it is not met. Sure. He wrote the book on it. But, on some basic level, it is such a moving target, it is hard to pin them down. OTOH, no matter what test you use, you either show originalism doesn't work in practice or works in a way that seems much like an alternative.

The "myth" continues though and we should continue to push back. Along with all the b.s. involved in the confirmation process here, that basic battle should continue.

Greg said...

While I generally agree with this post, I pretty vehemently disagree with this statement:

Judge Barrett also knows that the firepower of guns today has little in common with what such “arms” could do at the Founding.

Modern guns really are quite similar to what they could do at the founding, with predictable improvements in range, effectiveness, and reload efficiency. The most interesting of these (the repeating rifle) was available during the civil war and at the time of incorporation.

The only real exception to this is fully-automatic weapons, but those are predictable descendants of the Gatling gun that existed during the civil war and at the time of incorporation, so while not existing at the founding, they did exist at the time that the restriction was applied to the states.

Likewise, modern artillery are pretty straightforward descendants of revolutionary-war era cannons.

This leaves basically 3 weapons that did not exist at the time of the founding:
1.) Rockets/Missles with on-board guidance systems.
2.) Military Aircraft (Hot air ballons were in use at the time of incorporation, but primarily for reconnaissance.)
3.) Nuclear Weapons

When even most conservatives think of the right to bear arms, I don't think they're arguing that private citizens should have access to those unique modern weapons. They're referring to the modern equivalents to Revolutionary War or Civil War era weaponry.

Alg0rhythm said...

Scalia was a Republican lawyer on the bench, as active as an activist judge could be. Leslie Stahl gets him good and it's forgotten about. The media is killing these stories seemingly deliberately.

Joe said...

"Modern guns really are quite similar to what they could do at the founding, with predictable improvements in range, effectiveness, and reload efficiency."

They are "descendants" to be sure. I'm a descendant of Adam too.

Rather different though in practical effect.

Somewhat less so when you move ahead to 1868 though even there I gather the average gun a freeman had in their cabins or something wasn't a repeating rifle. As to "cannons," that would be artillery as compared to personal arms anyhow.

In some fashion, modern times can be seen as comparable to the past. The "speech" I'm writing now on some core level is like a pamphlet. But, there are quite a lot of differences to.

Karst said...

"Modern guns really are quite similar to what they could do at the founding, with predictable improvements in range, effectiveness, and reload efficiency."

A more realistic, and charitable reading of Eric Segall's statement

"Judge Barrett also knows that the firepower of guns today has little in common with what such “arms” could do at the Founding"

would recognize that there is a vast difference in range, effectiveness, and reload efficiency of modern weapons compared to those available at the time adoption of the 2nd amendment. Further, to add that there were (are?) predictable improvements is ludicrous if you mean that the adopters would have had that in mind, and therefore modern guns are quite similar with what they could do at the founding.

It is much more likely that the adopters would be appalled at sniping guns that can kill at such distance as occurs today, or that various modern ammunition could so easily kill, or be fired at such high velocities, or so quickly.

If you really mean to justify such statements regarding range, effectiveness, and reload efficiency, how about giving the real data and information on named modern weapons and the usual named weapons available then? I find it hard to believe that such an accounting would give results that are "quite similar". But I am willing to be so schooled with real data.

Greg said...

If we're specifically talking about small arms (in this context guns that can be carried by a single person and fired without support) I think the founders might be surprised how little firearms have changed, especially given how much technological progress has been made in other areas.

To the founders, a modern automobile or especially a modern computer would look like magic. A handheld machine-gun or a sniper rifle would look positively mundane by comparison. The reason is that in many ways the destructive capacity of firearms is dictated by limitations of the physics of flying projectiles. (The same reason there isn't a practical flying car, or cheap space travel.)

So, I don't believe that modern small arms are sufficiently different in design or capability (including destructive capability and range) from those available at the founding to represent a different class of weapon than those considered and referred to as arms in the 2nd Amendment. I don't think Judge Barrett considers them sufficiently different either. This seems to be the real point that Prof. Segall was trying to make, and I respectfully disagree.

Furthermore, Prof. Segall is treating this as a settled issue, and I think that's begging the question. Doing so paints Judge Barrett as a hypocrite, which I'm not sure is true on this particular view.

Note: This whole discussion makes Prof. Segall's larger point, that it's impossible to divine the views of the founders when applied to modern facts and cases, and as such originalism cannot actually drive Judge's choices in any meaningful way where the results are not blindingly obvious.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Prof. Segall's next sentence: "Laws that restrict the sale of assault weapons or that require special permits to carry such weapons or that prohibit felons from owning guns simply cannot be addressed through historical investigation but only by balancing the government’s interests in public safety against the Second Amendment rights asserted by the plaintiffs." I just don't think that's any different today that it was in 1791.

Ed Milner Jr said...

Leonardo da Vinci sketched machine guns (and helicopters), and Isaac Newton observed that a cannon fired fast enough from the top of a mountain high enough would orbit the earth, presaging ballistic missiles. Generals who presumably spent a great deal of effort trying to predict the effects of new weapons in the Am. Civil War (rifled muskets) and WW I (machine guns) were disastrously wrong in both cases. The weapons the authors of the constitution had in mind were muzzle loading smooth bores, and the argument that their effects differ only in degree from modern weapons is not to be taken seriously.

Fred Raymond said...

By the time a case gets up to the SCOTUS, it seems like any clearly defined laws have fizzled out; that's part of why it got there. So, for any SCOTUS nominee to say that they're going to stick to the law as written is disingenuous anyway.

Unknown said...

I completely trusted Dr Jumba from the time I spoke with him during the period my husband Left me after 1year and 3months of our marriage, Dr Jumba helped me Cast the spell work on my Relationship and gave me so much assurance and guaranteed me that he was going to bring my husband back to Me in just 15hours of the spell casting. I was so confident in his work because I have read A Lot of Testimonies online & Also for the Fact he Helped a Friend of mine Some weeks Back to get her Man Back. My faith was so strong About everything and just as Dr Jumba said to me in the beginning, my husband came back to me Asking for my Forgiveness And Also wants us to have A Happy Home together, YES MY HUSBAND IS BACK with all his hearts, Love, care, emotions and flowers and things are better now. Thankyou So much Papa, you cleared my Doubts about magic or Spells and You Also Brought Life and Happiness to me. I would have no hesitation to recommend this powerful spell caster to anybody who is in need of help.. You can contact him through his email address: OR Call ️  / WhatsApp him on: +19085174108  blog :  WEBSITE: