Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
*Shrug* Maybe, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Maybe there's some written guidelines out there. Maybe start by studying Scalia and Thomas's opinions.
I do disagree with the premise a little. If deciding cases were as easy as boiling them down to a set of rules, then what do we need you for*? We could stick all case data in a computer and churn out the decision. Man, wouldn't that be great ... force all you bright attorneys to go out and actually contribute to society.
*Meaning lawyers, not you personally.
|
Precisely. It isn't written. The "rules" of originalism are totally subjective. Who to listen to, who to avoid, when the applicable period for review ought to be, whose definition of a term controls, etc. And because those "rules" aren't written (and really can't be), even within the broad framework of originalism you have tremendous latitude to accomplish most anything you want from a results perspective, which is what lawyers (and judges) try to do all the time (as well as persuade others which "rules" should be valued over others).
Sounds like you have seen the light.