Judicial Philosophies and the Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal Supreme Court correspondent Jess Bravin discussed the judicial philosophies that Supreme Court Justices use to interpret the Constitution and statutes. He explained the differences between originalism, textualism and the living Constitution.
Description
Wall Street Journal Supreme Court correspondent Jess Bravin discussed the judicial philosophies that Supreme Court Justices use to interpret the Constitution and statutes. He explained the differences between originalism, textualism and the living Constitution.
Bell Ringer Assignment
- What questions do originalists ask when interpreting the Constitution or statutes?
- Using Mr. Bravin’s example, how do originalists interpret “cruel and unusual punishment”?
- Using Mr. Bravin’s example, how do Justices who believe in a living or evolving Constitution interpret “cruel and unusual punishment”?
- What considerations do Justices who believe in a living or evolving Constitution use when interpreting the Constitution?
- What is meant by textualism?
- What is meant by purposivism?
- According to Mr. Bravin, what are problems with using these labels?
Additional Resources
Participants
Vocabulary
- Cruel And Unusual Punishment
- Legislative History
- Living Constitution
- Originalism
- Purposivism
- Statute
- Textualism