As I had asserted in my De Novo post on originalism, I believe the debate over originalism/textualism will continue, but with added vigor and persuasiveness to the originalist side. T. at Ex Post has just posted a nicely written post on some shortcomings of Professor Leiter's recent criticism of the originalist project.
Professor Leiter "repeats his demand for a "principled" case for being bound by the original meaning." T. responds:
The principle is inherent, though, in writing laws down in the first place--it is the principle that the law (not any given human being, such as a judge or a chancellor or a prince or a Guardian) is the rule. Originalism is all about the rule of law. And it is simply not intelligible to speak of the law ruling when (a) the law is written but (b) the meaning of what was written bears no necessary relationship to its future application.
Comments