Amy Coney Barrett — Forestalling a Misunderstanding

Policy


Writing in The Week, Ryan Cooper calls Judge Barrett “a hard-line social conservative who has suggested that paper money, West Virginia, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Social Security Administration are all possibly unconstitutional.”

If that sounds weird, it’s a good sign that the matter bears some more scrutiny.

What Barrett wrote, in a co-authored law-review article, is that originalist arguments have been made to the effect that each of these things are unconstitutional. The authors do not say that these arguments are persuasive or even halfway decent. They use these examples to introduce the subject of the article, which is what originalist congressmen who disagree with well-settled judicial precedents should do. The examples were chosen to heighten the problem for the hypothetical congressmen precisely because the disappearance of any of these things is so unthinkable. There isn’t the faintest hint of a suggestion in the article that courts should strike any of them down.

You Might Like

If Barrett is nominated, misreadings of this passage are, I suspect, going to have to be batted down again and again.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.





Read the Original Article Here

Articles You May Like

The Green New Deal Can’t Break The Laws Of Physics
Ana Navarro Gets Mad at Those Who Voted for Mickey Mouse
Expensify users drop company after left-wing CEO sends unsolicited email telling users to vote for Biden
Election Winner Announcement Should Be Delayed, Kevin McCarthy Says
Senator Ed Markey Slams Judicial ‘Originalism’ as ‘Racist,’ ‘Sexist,’ and ‘Homophobic’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *