This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: April 13, 2011 A-Law and Politics in judicial decision-making 1- Plain meaning/literalist (Hugo Black) 2- Original Intent (Edwin Meese – Rehnquist?) 3- Strict construction/textualist (Antonin Scalia) a. The framers wrote things down, so we should take their words seriously, and not infuse them with a whole bunch of things we care about today b. If we want to change the meaning, we should add amendments 4- Broad construction/Living Constitution a. We shouldn’t read the Constitution in some narrow way based just on the way the text was understood at the time b. We should see how the Concepts apply to today 5- Constitutional can be seen as a Bi-sectional compromise 1- Difficult to determine original intent 2- How do we know what their original intent was? 3- The Constitution doesn’t say how it should be read a. That decision is made as a matter of political philosophy b. Views about the role of judges, government, who should have access to what B-Percentage of cases in which pairs of justice voted together 9200-2001 term, baum...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/06/2012 for the course POLISCI 106 taught by Professor Levine during the Fall '07 term at Rutgers.
- Fall '07