Skip to main content

View Diary: Robert Bork's influence over antitrust law (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A great simplification (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wham Bam, Litvak1936

    of a complicated debate.

    In fact, it is actually impossible not to be an originalist.  The framers intent is absolutely relevant if you care about trying to figure out what it means.

    Of course, there are cases they never anticipated.  

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:20:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

      What originalists mean is literal originalism, not general originalism. It's impossible to ascertain the framers' intent as they intended many things, variously. Did they intend enumerated or implied powers? Did they intend for there to be an Air Force or national bank? Ultimately, who cares? What matters is if they established a general framework by which such things could be decided over time. If you're going back to literal intent and strict constructionism, even assuming that you could resolve that intent, which you obviously can't given the differences among the framers and the vagueness with which they addressed their intents, then you effectively throw out any ruling after Marbury v. Madison as "activist". Which is lunacy.

      As for this, I assume you're being funny:

      Of course, there are cases they never anticipated.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:26:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site