"They are wrong in every conceivable way. Their pop-historical account of the Constitution has been debunked from top to bottom by legitimate legal historians, who have refuted the rotten moorings of this bogus theory with devastating precision. And yet there is no real question that the Supreme Court's Republican-appointed justices will endorse it anyway in Slaughter, handing Trump sweeping new authority to abuse his office in direct violation of federal law."
"This near-inevitable ruling confirms the most stinging critique of originalism: It allows judges to align constitutional meaning with the Republican Party's preferences, disregarding evidence that contradicts their desired outcome. The result in Slaughter will inflict profound damage on the separation of powers, democracy, and individual rights, all on the basis of a legal urban legend. This fraudulent originalism permits an easily discredited myth to swallow the truth-and with it, yet another legal restraint on Trump's pursuit of unchecked control over the machinery of government."
The Supreme Court is likely to award the President near-absolute control over the executive branch, empowering the President to fire federal officials who offer independent checks. Conservative legal theory claims this outcome rests on original historical understanding and long-standing tradition. Legitimate legal historians have rejected that account as false and debunked its foundations. Despite that rejection, a court majority is expected to endorse the theory, granting sweeping authority that would enable law violations and abuses. The ruling will weaken the separation of powers, erode democratic safeguards, and strip protections for individual rights by removing legal restraints on presidential control.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]