Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern address listener questions on legal interpretations under Donald Trump's presidency and a powerful Supreme Court. They discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's adept responses to flawed historical claims and the limitations of originalism, which they argue is impractical. The necessity for progressive interpretations of the Constitution is emphasized, particularly concerning rights for women and minorities, illustrating how historical constraints can lead to significant legal and societal consequences if adhered to strictly.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson exemplifies how liberal justices should effectively address flawed historical claims while arguing against the impracticality of originalism.
The liberal justices highlight that originalism often distorts historical context and fails to apply the Constitution's vision of rights for all citizens.
Locking rights to the 18th century model neglects the advancements in self-governance for women and minorities, which ultimately leads to detrimental legal outcomes.
The interpretations of the Constitution should evolve beyond the perspective of the 18th century where only straight, white property-owning males had rights.
Collection
[
|
...
]