David French, an originalist defending the Warren Court, discusses worst-case hypotheticals and answers audience questions. Topics include faithless DNC delegates, Supreme Court legitimacy, counter-majoritarianism, and the fairness problem of the 'Stolen Seat'. They also touch on Common Good Constitutionalism, originalism, and the battle for the legal right, while exploring historical Supreme Court cases and trends in judicial perspectives.
The battle for expertise and ideological shifts play a crucial role in shaping the way politics and the legal system function. Over the years, there has been a continuous struggle between the left and the right in terms of their approaches towards expertise and governance. The left tends to embrace the role of experts in government and views them as crucial for decision-making, whereas the right often values individualism and generalists, preferring private sector initiatives over government intervention. This battle has significant implications on policies, with each side advocating for its own version of governance.
The Influence of MAGA Legal Movement and Common Good Constitutionalism
The MAGA legal movement, which encompasses various branches, reflects a shift in legal ideologies towards outcomes-driven approaches and a focus on common good constitutionalism. This movement encompasses individuals who support Donald Trump's legal initiatives and advocate for legal theories that contradict traditional conservative legal doctrines. The emphasis on empowering the state and challenging established legal principles like originalism and textualism is a key characteristic of the MAGA legal movement.
The Perception of Recent Supreme Court Decisions
Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as the Loperrite ruling and the immunity decision, have sparked debates and differing interpretations based on political affiliations. These decisions have been viewed through partisan lenses, with individuals from both sides expressing concerns or praises based on their perceived impacts on future administrations and presidential powers. The political climate has magnified the partisan reactions to these rulings, contributing to a growing emphasis on short-term partisan wins rather than a nuanced understanding of their long-term consequences.
The Evolution of the Federalist Society and Ideological Shifts
The dynamics between the Federalist Society and the ideological landscape highlight the ongoing shift in legal ideologies and institutional approaches. As the Federalist Society navigates transitions and potential changes in leadership, there are implications for how the organization will maintain its traditional focus on conservative legal principles amidst evolving ideological currents. The interplay between ideology, legal theory, and institutional dynamics reveals the complex interactions shaping the legal landscape.
Predictions on Judicial Appointments and the Supreme Court's Future
Speculations regarding future judicial appointments, potential retirements, and the ideological trajectory of the Supreme Court under different political scenarios raise questions about the court's future composition and direction. The possibility of retirements during a Trump presidency, the influence of partisan shifts on judicial decisions, and the broader implications of ideological trends on the court's functioning underscore the intricate interplay between politics, law, and institutional dynamics.
Could Joe Biden sue a faithless delegate? Would Brown v. Board exist if a supermajority had opposed integration? Is the next generation of lawyers doomed? In a special live recording at the American Enterprise Institute, Sarah and David contemplate a series of worst-case hypotheticals and answer audience questions. Bonus: originalist David French (somewhat) defends the Warren Court.
Agenda:
—Bound, free, and faithless DNC delegates
—How the 12th Amendment could cause a 13th-hour, three-way race for president
—What the 25th Amendment might mean for Vice President Kamala Harris
—The legitimacy of a counter-majoritarian Supreme Court
—SCOTUS as a lagging indicator
—The fairness problem of the “Stolen Seat”
—Common-good constitutionalism, originalism, and the battle for the legal right
Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including Sarah’s Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here.
