Constitutional Originalism Debunked

"Dahlia Lithwick is a lawyer, journalist and best-selling author. She is also the host of Slate’s podcast, Amicus, about the law and the Supreme Court. Dahlia joins Preet to discuss the different methods of constitutional interpretation and how one doctrine in particular has taken over this Supreme Court."

Click on the link below for a podcast exposing the fraud of Constitutional Originalism:

Originalism 101

- - - - - - - - -

"The court has always invoked historical understandings and precedents in its decisions, but its recent calls to history flow from a different source: a longstanding commitment in conservative political and legal circles to “originalism,” the idea that our constitutional rights are defined by—and limited to—whatever the earliest generations of Americans thought the Constitution meant several hundred years ago. So, if it were against the law to go hatless in the late-eighteenth century, hat-wearing would be banned today. Originalism denies the reality that law must change over time as our society changes."

Click on the link below for an article also exposing the made-up concept of Constitutional Originalism:

This Supreme Court’s ‘Originalism’ Doesn’t Have Much to Do with History

The Shadow Docket And More: The Corruption of the US Supreme Court

"Today's guest, or should I say last year's guest, is Steve Vladeck! He holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, and is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice. Last year, he released the New York Times bestselling book, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." We spoke about the book and about the state of our horrible Supreme Court."

Click on the link below for a podcast delving into the disgusting bowels of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court: the Full Monty

Monopolies: What Is Being Done To Control Them?

"There are bold new moves underway in the U.S. to scrutinize blockbuster business deals and ensure they are in the interest of consumers and the wider economy. Assistant attorney general Jonathan Kanter and FTC chair Lina Khan join Walter to discuss the new proposed merger and acquisition guidelines released last week, and how they are calculated to protect market competition."

Click on the link below for details:

What New Antitrust Guidelines Mean For Americans?

Litigation Funding: An Answer To Corporate Power?

"Litigation funding involves the agreement of a third party (with no prior connection to the litigation) to finance all or part of the legal costs of certain litigation, in return for a percentage of any damages recovered should the funded litigant be successful."

Click on the link below for a "60 minutes" segment presenting the pros and cons of this recent attempt to help the "small guy" in corporate legal disputes:

More investors fund lawsuits, as rules and transparency lag behind

What's The Balance Between The Law And Morality?

Since the dawn of human society, there has been tension between the strong arm of the law and the persuasive arm of morality. Click on the links below for some informed opinions on the matter. With the actions of conservatives to suppress democratic institutions through the packing of the Supreme Court and state courts, and acting immorally as a feature and not a bug, there has never been a better time to understand the roles both should play in a healthy society:

Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order?

Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct

Law and Morals: The Perennial and NecessaryTandem

- - - - - - -

Other points to ponder: 

The question of when personhood begins is a legal issue and there is great diversity of opinion on such. However, the longer a product of conception develops, there is more and more consensus regarding when such becomes another legal person. Those who say it starts at conception are presenting their personal moral view. There is a strong legal precedent for the bodily autonomy of a person.

If all people were moral, laws would not be necessary. Unfortunately, we need laws. Unfortunately, many appropriate laws are not enforced. Unfortunately, many laws are immoral.

"Beyond A Reasonable Doubt"

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[1] It is a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities (commonly used in civil matters) and is usually therefore reserved for criminal matters where what is at stake (i.e., someone's life or liberty) is considered more serious and therefore deserving of a higher threshold.

"The prosecution in criminal matters typically bears the burden of proof and is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that in order for a defendant to be found guilty, the case presented by the prosecution must be enough to remove any reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge or jury that the defendant is guilty of the crime with which one is charged." (Wikipedia)

- - - - - - -

Our perception of reality is not perfect. Our brains have many cognitive flaws and biases. Science, our best method of understanding reality, is not certain as it uses inductive reasoning to develop tentative theories that can be modified with further objective evidence in the future. The legal system uses abductive reasoning in an attempt to find "the most likely" as it is less certain than a scientific theory. While science uses objective evidence only, the legal system also uses the less-certain subjective evidence as well.

Forensic (Pseudo) Science

"Under Obama, a commission called the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology researched and wrote a 2016 report called Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods which found many techniques, such as bite mark and shoe print analysis, so devoid of foundational validity they should be prohibited. But what was to be done with these findings would be left to the Trump administration. What that turned out to be was that the Obama commission's charter was allowed to immediately expire; the new Attorney General outright dismissed their report and said it would not be adopted; and Trump's own forensic science review was announced, which consisted of one former prosecutor hired to write one release stating the Obama report was in error and should be ignored. As of this writing, that's where we remain today."

Click on this link to understand just how bad so-called forensic science is, no thanks to the Trump administration, of course.

Personal Autonomy And Row V. Wade

"The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest. Roe held that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, it was held, the mother's liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest."

Right of Privacy/Personal Autonomy

There is another way of looking at the issue of abortion:  when does the potential person become a person?

If Pro-Lifers Got into the Car Business

Expert Testimony For The Defense 101

"When I worked as a defense witness, I never aimed to get anybody “off” whom I thought was guilty. That wasn’t my goal. My goal was always to make sure that when someone’s freedom or life was on the line, they were given a proper defense, and the government not allowed to railroad them by distorting statistics and population genetics."

I get email from people who don’t understand the legal system

Neuroscience, Determinism And The Law

'I think we live in a very retributive society. I think it would be perhaps good if we became a little calmer about criminal offending and really started to think about the causes of criminal offending that are outside the criminal's control.'

 Can neurolaw change the criminal justice system?

The Brain Gets Its Day in Court

A new study found that the number of judicial opinions referencing neuroscience as evidence more than doubled between 2005 and 2012.

The scientific and legal communities have different methods and standards for evaluating evidence. Scientists have a culture of objectivity and a statistical mindset when it comes to uncertainty.

Science, The Supreme Court And The Law

"Justice Antonin Scalia was a brilliant man in many ways. He was not, however, a science expert, or a science enthusiast, or even a science believer."

Scalia’s Supreme Court Replacement Should Respect Science