There is no conservative legal movement

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
The conservative legal movement distinguishes itself from other approaches by declaring itself united not around “results-oriented jurisprudence” but rather around a set of supposedly neutral methods for interpreting legal texts. Conservative jurisprudence — again, as advertised — has four pillars: originalism, textualism, traditionalism and judicial restraint. Although different conservatives emphasize one or the other approach, all are staples of Federalist Society events and lauded in the opinions of conservative justices.

It is grimly hilarious, then, that the court’s opinion in West Virginia v. EPA follows none of these methods.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/07/06/epa-roberts-conservative-court-libertarian/
 
“As McGahn … told the Federalist Society, ‘The greatest threat to the rule of law in our modern society is the ever-expanding regulatory state, and the most effective bulwark against that threat is a strong judiciary.’… The emphasis on social conservatism and its associated hot-button issues ended with [former Justice Antonin] Scalia, McGahn said at the first meeting after the election to discuss the justice’s successor. It was now all about regulatory relief.
 
BidenPresident said:
“As McGahn … told the Federalist Society, ‘The greatest threat to the rule of law in our modern society is the ever-expanding regulatory state, and the most effective bulwark against that threat is a strong judiciary.’… The emphasis on social conservatism and its associated hot-button issues ended with [former Justice Antonin] Scalia, McGahn said at the first meeting after the election to discuss the justice’s successor. It was now all about regulatory relief.
Click to expand...

REEEEEEE some moar! It's music to my ears! :D
 
BidenPresident said:
The conservative legal movement distinguishes itself from other approaches by declaring itself united not around “results-oriented jurisprudence” but rather around a set of supposedly neutral methods for interpreting legal texts. Conservative jurisprudence — again, as advertised — has four pillars: originalism, textualism, traditionalism and judicial restraint. Although different conservatives emphasize one or the other approach, all are staples of Federalist Society events and lauded in the opinions of conservative justices.

It is grimly hilarious, then, that the court’s opinion in West Virginia v. EPA follows none of these methods.
Click to expand...
absurd......it stands on all standards of strict constructuralism........the holding was the EPA did not have authority under the constitution to act to create legislation.......
 
BidenPresident said:
The conservative legal movement distinguishes itself from other approaches by declaring itself united not around “results-oriented jurisprudence” but rather around a set of supposedly neutral methods for interpreting legal texts. Conservative jurisprudence — again, as advertised — has four pillars: originalism, textualism, traditionalism and judicial restraint. Although different conservatives emphasize one or the other approach, all are staples of Federalist Society events and lauded in the opinions of conservative justices.

It is grimly hilarious, then, that the court’s opinion in West Virginia v. EPA follows none of these methods.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/07/06/epa-roberts-conservative-court-libertarian/
Click to expand...

HORSE SHIT. IT IS AS ORIGINALIST AS COULD BE, AS IT STRIPS AWAY THE POWER OF UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS OVER THE TAXPAYERS WHO COULD NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.


IT WAS A BRILLIANT ,LONG OVERDUE REINING IN OF THE POWERS OF THE UNELECTED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top