Skip to main content

View Diary: On Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution? (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Originalism and stare decisis (none)
    Are they compatible?

    I've heard that Scalia calls himself less radical that Thomas, saying "He doesn't even believe in stare decisis!"

    But, if you believe in interpreting the Constitution based on the context of the time in which it was written, doesn't that necessarily mean ignoring all later rulings?

    I've got blisters on my fingers!

    by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 12:45:50 PM PDT

    •  Excellent Point! (none)
      Virtually all conservative philosophy is riddled with contradictions, and you've just pointed out an obvious, but routinely overlooked one.

      In fact, Souter's judicial philosophy seems to have been very heavily influenced by the fact that he takes stare decisis quite seriously, quite unlike Scalia when it comes to vast swatches of jurisprudence from the past 75 years.

      There is, in fact, a very good case to be made that Souter is the most consistent conservative on the Court--conservative in the sense of one who favors gradual change reflecting the organic development of society while preserving its institutions and practices.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site