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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A Clash of Judicial Visions
LAW & THE COURTS
A Clash of Judicial Visions
By JOHN YOO & JAMES C. PHILLIPS
October 19, 2018 6:30 AM
Defining the proper role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system
Editors Note: The following is the first in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips will lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track.
The end of the sordid ordeal that led to Brett Kavanaughs confirmation provides conservatives the opportunity to think deeply about what they want from the Supreme Court. Conservatives, of course, would have fought for Kavanaugh whether he was a stalwart Clarence Thomas or a wandering Anthony Kennedy. At stake were the principles of fairness and due process that should guide all of our institutions, even when they intersect with the #MeToo movements claims. The courts, Congress, federal agencies, state governments, and even the most delusional of our great societal institutions the media and our colleges and universities must not banish facts, proof, and the right to be heard.
But now that Justice Kavanaugh has assumed his seat on the Court, conservatives can take a step back and consider their agenda for the future. Democrats launched their scorched-earth war against Kavanaugh, an outstanding judge and distinguished public servant, precisely because his appointment promised a reliable fifth vote for a conservative majority. Theres a good argument to be made that conservatives have not had such a working majority on the Court since 1936. Even though Republican presidents have appointed the majority of justices since 1968, when Richard Nixon won on a law-and-order platform, their appointments have often grown in office and drifted leftwards. But the outrageousness of Democratic attacks on Justice Kavanaugh should guarantee that he will not follow in the path of Republican-appointed Justices such as Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter, who became lions of the Left.
The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to reconsider doctrines at odds with the Constitutions original meaning. Before they devolved into an ugly political and personal brawl, Kavanaughs confirmation hearings revealed, among other things, the fault lines in American constitutional politics.
....
With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, for the first time in generations there is a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who, to varying degrees, practice originalism and textualism. This means that the Court can systematically begin to restore the Constitution to its original meaning. This constitutional restoration does not mean that the Constitutions original meaning is the best choice from a policy perspective on any given issue. It means that the people get to decide what is best, and the Supreme Court is bound to follow their will. The Court has no authority to diverge from the Constitutions original meaning, only a duty to return to it until the people decide otherwise. And with the Courts new makeup, a day when it once again sits atop the least dangerous branch of government is within sight.
John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. James C. Phillips is an attorney in private practice and a non-resident fellow at Stanford Law Schools Constitutional Law Center.
A Clash of Judicial Visions
By JOHN YOO & JAMES C. PHILLIPS
October 19, 2018 6:30 AM
Defining the proper role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system
Editors Note: The following is the first in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips will lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track.
The end of the sordid ordeal that led to Brett Kavanaughs confirmation provides conservatives the opportunity to think deeply about what they want from the Supreme Court. Conservatives, of course, would have fought for Kavanaugh whether he was a stalwart Clarence Thomas or a wandering Anthony Kennedy. At stake were the principles of fairness and due process that should guide all of our institutions, even when they intersect with the #MeToo movements claims. The courts, Congress, federal agencies, state governments, and even the most delusional of our great societal institutions the media and our colleges and universities must not banish facts, proof, and the right to be heard.
But now that Justice Kavanaugh has assumed his seat on the Court, conservatives can take a step back and consider their agenda for the future. Democrats launched their scorched-earth war against Kavanaugh, an outstanding judge and distinguished public servant, precisely because his appointment promised a reliable fifth vote for a conservative majority. Theres a good argument to be made that conservatives have not had such a working majority on the Court since 1936. Even though Republican presidents have appointed the majority of justices since 1968, when Richard Nixon won on a law-and-order platform, their appointments have often grown in office and drifted leftwards. But the outrageousness of Democratic attacks on Justice Kavanaugh should guarantee that he will not follow in the path of Republican-appointed Justices such as Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter, who became lions of the Left.
The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to reconsider doctrines at odds with the Constitutions original meaning. Before they devolved into an ugly political and personal brawl, Kavanaughs confirmation hearings revealed, among other things, the fault lines in American constitutional politics.
....
With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, for the first time in generations there is a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who, to varying degrees, practice originalism and textualism. This means that the Court can systematically begin to restore the Constitution to its original meaning. This constitutional restoration does not mean that the Constitutions original meaning is the best choice from a policy perspective on any given issue. It means that the people get to decide what is best, and the Supreme Court is bound to follow their will. The Court has no authority to diverge from the Constitutions original meaning, only a duty to return to it until the people decide otherwise. And with the Courts new makeup, a day when it once again sits atop the least dangerous branch of government is within sight.
John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. James C. Phillips is an attorney in private practice and a non-resident fellow at Stanford Law Schools Constitutional Law Center.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 761 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Clash of Judicial Visions (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2018
OP
Sorry; the regulation that prevented you from being required to read this has been gutted by Trump.
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2018
#3
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,719 posts)1. Anything by John "Torture Memo" Yoo is worthy to be used only
in the bathroom if you run out of Charmin.
Constitutional originalism is almost as dumb as flat-earthism.
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)2. Why are the writings of a war criminal posted at DU?
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,468 posts)3. Sorry; the regulation that prevented you from being required to read this has been gutted by Trump.
Reinforcement theory
Reinforcement theory is a limited effects media model applicable within the realm of communication. The theory generally states that people seek out and remember information that provides cognitive support for their pre-existing attitudes and beliefs. The main assumption that guides this theory is that people do not like to be wrong and often feel uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged.
....
Politics
Politics provides an excellent setting for the study of reinforcement theory. ... Reinforcement theory predicts that people with already developed opinions will selectively attend to and cognitively incorporate information that supports their own views. Reinforcement theory has three primary mechanisms behind it: selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention.
Selective exposure
The primary basis for the selective exposure assumption can be located within cognitive dissonance theory, although contemporary work (Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014) draws on numerous theories. Basically, this theory states that people do not like to have previously-held beliefs challenged. When individuals encounter information that is discrepant from their own opinions, they seek to resolve the resultant disharmony somehow. People in general do not like to be wrong. A change or shift in attitude is sometimes interpreted as an admission that the original belief was inaccurate or inadequate. To avoid having their opinions challenged, research indicates that people tend to simply avoid information that might be discrepant in nature (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland, 1997).
....
The explosion of the Internet has put the individual in the driver's seat with regard to what kind of information s/he will encounter. McLeod, Kosicki, and McLeod (2002) stated that information selection and "exposure is much more specialized and individualized" (p. 221) in the era of the World Wide Web. Furthermore, cable channel options continue to multiply with specific, niche target audiences in mind. Some researchers worry that this increased level of fragmentation makes it possible for people to effectively avoid diverse viewpoints and perspectives (McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 2002). If a person limits his/her information acquisition to that which is only consistent with a personal point of view, s/he will surely not contribute to a fully informed electorate.
....
Reinforcement theory is a limited effects media model applicable within the realm of communication. The theory generally states that people seek out and remember information that provides cognitive support for their pre-existing attitudes and beliefs. The main assumption that guides this theory is that people do not like to be wrong and often feel uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged.
....
Politics
Politics provides an excellent setting for the study of reinforcement theory. ... Reinforcement theory predicts that people with already developed opinions will selectively attend to and cognitively incorporate information that supports their own views. Reinforcement theory has three primary mechanisms behind it: selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention.
Selective exposure
The primary basis for the selective exposure assumption can be located within cognitive dissonance theory, although contemporary work (Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014) draws on numerous theories. Basically, this theory states that people do not like to have previously-held beliefs challenged. When individuals encounter information that is discrepant from their own opinions, they seek to resolve the resultant disharmony somehow. People in general do not like to be wrong. A change or shift in attitude is sometimes interpreted as an admission that the original belief was inaccurate or inadequate. To avoid having their opinions challenged, research indicates that people tend to simply avoid information that might be discrepant in nature (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland, 1997).
....
The explosion of the Internet has put the individual in the driver's seat with regard to what kind of information s/he will encounter. McLeod, Kosicki, and McLeod (2002) stated that information selection and "exposure is much more specialized and individualized" (p. 221) in the era of the World Wide Web. Furthermore, cable channel options continue to multiply with specific, niche target audiences in mind. Some researchers worry that this increased level of fragmentation makes it possible for people to effectively avoid diverse viewpoints and perspectives (McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 2002). If a person limits his/her information acquisition to that which is only consistent with a personal point of view, s/he will surely not contribute to a fully informed electorate.
....
I'm waiting for the inevitable alert.
mahatmakanejeeves
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)5. Enjoy the dust bin. Your insult is pathetic.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)4. How about the Emoluments Clause?
How about that for "originalist"?
Nitram
(22,803 posts)6. The only reason to read this piece of filth is to "Know Thine Enemy."
Frankly, it taught me nothing I did not already know, in spite of jeeves' overblown sense of duty to enlighten us poor isolated liberals.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)7. Originalism is the judicial equivalent of RW Religious Fundamentalism.
Both are rooted in Slaveholder ideology; originalist pedantics scour the Constitution just as RW Fundie sects dredge the Bible for loopholes only to justify their hateful,totalitarian perversions of both democracy and christianity.