- Describe these two judicial philosophies.
- What are the differences between the two?
- What role did this debate play in the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor? Thomas and Sotomayor follow which philosophy?
Here is a biography of Justice Sotomayor from Oyez-Supreme Court Media site. http://www.oyez.org/justices/sonia_sotomayor
Here is a biography of Justice Thomas from the Oyez-Supreme Court Media site. http://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas
- The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has become a partisan issue. The Republican controlled Congress will not consider the nomination for the vacancy presented by President Obama because they believe that he cannot nominate a candidate because he is nearing the end of his term and it should be done after the election. What does the Constitution say about the nomination process?
Why was the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett so controversial ?
- What does the recent Supreme Court ruling say about the court's judicial position and public opinion?
Full Answer Section
The debate between originalism and interpretivism played a role in the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. Thomas is an originalist, while Sotomayor is an interpretivist. This difference in judicial philosophy was evident during their confirmation hearings, as each justice was asked to explain their views on the Constitution.
Thomas argued that he would interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the text, while Sotomayor argued that she would consider the historical context and the intent of the framers. Ultimately, Thomas was confirmed by the Senate, while Sotomayor was also confirmed, but by a narrower margin.
The Constitution does not explicitly say how the nomination process for Supreme Court justices should work. However, it does say that the president has the power to nominate justices, and that the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those nominations.
The Republican-controlled Congress has argued that the Constitution does not give the president the power to nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year. However, there is no clear consensus on this issue, and it is likely to be debated further in the future.
Sample Answer
Originalism is a judicial philosophy that holds that judges should interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the text at the time it was written. Originalists believe that the Constitution is a living document, but that its meaning should not be changed by judges.
Interpretivism is a judicial
philosophy that holds that judges should interpret the Constitution based on the text, but also consider the historical context and the intent of the framers. Interpretivists believe that the Constitution is a living document, and that its meaning can change over time.
The main difference between originalism and interpretivism is how much weight judges should give to the original meaning of the text. Originalists believe that the original meaning should be the starting point for interpretation, while interpretivists believe that judges should also consider other factors, such as the historical context and the intent of the framers.