Jack (I think) suggested recently that there's a problem with "originalism". I can't remember whether his complaint was that it's a flawed concept, in itself, or that it's simply a pretense by which a justice justifies their own meaning for a given law by yapping about the "intentions" of the authors/adherents/enacters [⛧]. Correct me if I've screwed it up, Jack. It seems completely reasonable to me that a judge (or justice) would start out with and evolve a typical "method" by which they do their job. So, it's unclear to me what's wrong with originalism or textualism. (My brief googly suggested there are flaws with "strict construction". So, maybe we can ignore that one.)
This article <https://www.salon.com/2020/09/22/trump-supreme-court-front-runner-amy-coney-barrett-belongs-to-group-that-inspired-handmaids-tale/> claims Judge Barrett is a "strict constructionist", by which I'm guessing he means she's really either originalist or textualist. But what I'm missing are the *other* "methods". What contrasts with originalist and textualist? Any clues for the clueless would be very welcome. [⛧] There's a word out there that I'm spacing. What's a synonym to "swear by", like when you say you "follow a creed" or whatever? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
