It’s not a stretch to say that the Supreme Court plays an outsized role in our democracy, determining the scope of various rights, such as abortion, immigration, and the right to vote. We hear a lot about how the current Supreme Court focuses on originalism, or the idea that it must interpret the Constitution just how the Framers would have understood it. Under this theory, judges should not really consider how a constitutional principle might operate in today’s society. Instead, they must figure out the original public meaning of a word or clause and interpret the phrase consistently with that understanding. Supporters of originalism say that it limits judges, forcing them to consider the Framers’ views instead of their own opinions.
How did the Court fully embrace this idea? Is it the proper way to construe the Constitution? Joining Josh Douglas to discuss the reasons behind the Court’s current approach is Madiba Dennie. She’s the Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at the critical legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes. She’s also the author of the new book, “The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back.”
**Public Media funding is under threat. You can help! Join WEKU's 1850 campaign for the future! 1,850 new supporters, each giving $10 monthly to keep WEKU strong. Donate today!
