Hello everyone! Should we use originalism to try and gain criminal defendants rights? Or should we rely only on reform by statute or even constitutional amendment? What are the advantages/disadvantages of either approach?
We should never promote or use originalism for the sake of originalism. There is some reason to start from the text because its the most logical place to start
I'm just really confused about this entire discussion and I think I personally needed more of an intro. I still don't understand the admissibility vs sufficiency distinction, and I don't see how Scalia collapsed the confrontation clause
I don't really understand the framing of looking at the question of "should" with respect to originalism. If you accept the framework wouldnt the point be to decide simply based on original intent regardless of the consequences. I feel like regardless of what interepative framework you use to justify it on consequential grounds to either increase or decrease 6th amend. rights seems super short sighted
Summaries of Apprendi and Crawford and I'll do some back in the big room too: Apprendi: we should have the jury consider any facts we use to increase sentences beyond the statutory maximum (very rights protective) Crawford: Scalia equates the confrontation clause to hearsay rules basically says all the 6th Amendment was supposed to protect against was "admissibility" of evidence and not whether that evidence is sufficient to put a case before the jury
I think that crawford was obviously different than raliegh in that crawford actually didnt want to confront anything. but crawford had a protection and expectation of privacy with his spouse and having this testimony eroded that right, so the result was correct- just not sure the connection to raleigh was appropriate
i think we should see if there is a textual grounding in original ism if not, then we should go to statue or even constitutional amendment. We should not try to force a puzzle piece that does not fit
reform by statute or constitutional amendment is preferable to using any interpretive framework on the constitution but given the current makeup of the judiciary, we should look into ways to use the originalist framework to expand rights
going back to the beginning of the convo about originialism, I just always think you need some other justification in addition to originalism for the argument to hold weight. Like there are reasons outside of the traditional reading to operate a system in that way. in this case, its especially clear given that scalia actually clearly misreads both the text and original understanding of the clause. so hes really not justifying this rights expansion on originalism
My view is that statutory/constitutional reform guards against shifts in the composition of the Supreme Court, as well as ever-changing interpretive approaches.
Scalia's opinion in Crawford is an effort to cement his emphasis on methodology of interpretation (originalism) - as opposed to actual adjudication of a case. Even though Scalia is clearly a part of why we have a mass incarceration problem - and has a clear record of being pro prosecutor - Crawford weirdly comes out ~somewhat~ pro defendant because this is Scalia flexing with originalism and wrongfully applying the 6th amendment. The case reads as him upholding a methodology of interpretation as opposed to actually adjudicating / properly interpreting the law. All of this is a Scalia flex for originalism (structural, textual, etc.)
While Nesson's critique offers an alternative originalist view of Raleigh but I am not sure that this is necessarily the correct reading? Both views seem somewhat plausible at a high level and I feel like we would need more of the history to reach a conclusion