Jonathan Turley mocks the idea of testifying on behalf of the Founders — “a form of necromancy that academics do all the time. And that’s what we get paid for.” Adds that he would strike George Washington from the jury pool because of his “extreme” executive power #impeachment
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) December 4, 2019
If you haven’t been following the impeachment hearings, apparently Democrats asked some expert witnesses what they believed the founding fathers would think of Trump’s behavior and whether or not they would find it an impeachable offense. This has Republican witness Jonathan Turley (LUL) and Republicans very het up, because as we all know, trying to figure out what is in the minds of the deceased is preposterous.
Unfortunately, that is the EXACT FUCKING judicial philosophy the Republicans have been pushing for the last forty years. RIP, originalism:
That meaning must be the objective meaning — not the reader’s subjective understanding or preferred reading. And that meaning must be the original meaning — that is, the meaning the Constitution’s words and phrases would have had to reasonably informed readers of the English language at the time they were used, in context, and accounting for any specialized usages or term-of-art phrases. Any other reading is pure anachronism, a misuse of language.
This single correct method of constitutional interpretation travels under many names. I call it “original-public-meaning textualism,” emphasizing the text and the requirement that it be taken in its known, original sense. A convenient (if imprecise) shorthand term is simply “Originalism.” It contrasts, sharply, with any of a variety of progressive theories under which the Constitution’s meaning shifts, morphs, evolves, or otherwise transmogrifies to suit the needs or circumstances of the moment — and, typically, to serve the interpreter’s desired political agenda.
There is functionally no distinction from going back in time and looking at Madison’s writings and applying them to whether or not Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and the judicial philosophy of originalism.