DeepSummary
The episode is a conversation between Preet Bharara and Dahlia Lithwick, a lawyer, journalist, and host of Slate's Amicus podcast about the law and the Supreme Court. The discussion centers around the doctrine of originalism, a method of constitutional interpretation where justices are supposed to use the original meaning of the words written at the time of the founding.
Lithwick explains that originalism is a relatively new concept, gaining prominence in the 1980s and 1990s, contrary to the belief that it has existed since the founding. She critiques originalism for its lack of predictability and its tendency to cherry-pick historical evidence to support desired outcomes. Lithwick argues that originalism reinforces the power imbalances and societal norms that existed at the time of the founding, which can be problematic in a modern context.
The conversation also touches on the recent Supreme Court decision in Rahimi, where the Court rejected the strict originalist test proposed by Justice Clarence Thomas. Lithwick sees this as a potential turning point for the doctrine of originalism and its applicability in contemporary jurisprudence.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- Originalism, the doctrine of interpreting the Constitution based on the original meaning of its words at the time of the founding, is a relatively recent concept that gained prominence in the 1980s and 1990s.
- Lithwick critiques originalism for its lack of predictability, cherry-picking of historical evidence, and potential to reinforce antiquated societal norms and power imbalances.
- The recent Supreme Court decision in Rahimi, which rejected a strict originalist test, may signal a turning point for the doctrine and its applicability in contemporary jurisprudence.
- Lithwick argues that a viable method of constitutional interpretation should provide predictability, constraint, and the ability to adapt to modern societal norms.
- The lack of a compelling alternative from progressive legal scholars has allowed the flawed doctrine of originalism to gain prominence, despite its shortcomings.
- The discussion highlights the ongoing debate around methods of constitutional interpretation and their implications for Supreme Court decisions and the evolution of legal principles.
- Lithwick suggests that originalism, as currently practiced, fails to provide a consistent and principled framework for constitutional interpretation.
- The conversation underscores the importance of finding a method of interpretation that balances historical context, societal evolution, and the need for predictability and constraint in legal decisions.
Top Episodes Quotes
- βAnd so Rahimi becomes the test case. In addition, deep sense of Clarence Thomas methodology, where you can look and look and look and look. You're not going to find, as you said, anything from the founding or from the reconstruction amendments that say that you should be disarmed if you beat on your loved ones.β by Dahlia Lithwick
- βI think that the real answer is if we want a theory of constraint, right? We want a theory of predictability, and we want a theory of interpretation that is not simply, you know, Justice Douglas thinks that penumbras, but we want something meaningful that we can all agree on.β by Dahlia Lithwick
Entities
Company
Person
Podcast
Court case
Episode Information
Stay Tuned with Preet
CAFE
6/24/24
Dahlia Lithwick is a lawyer, journalist and best-selling author. She is also the host of Slateβs podcast, Amicus, about the law and the Supreme Court. Dahlia joins Preet to discuss the different methods of constitutional interpretation and how one doctrine in particular has taken over this Supreme Court.
Stay Tuned in Brief is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Please write to us with your thoughts and questions at letters@cafe.com, or leave a voicemail at 669-247-7338.
For analysis of recent legal news, join the CAFE Insider community. Head to cafe.com/insider to join for just $1 for the first month.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices