Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Thomas is really alone in his commitment to an analytical school that has the text of the COTUS as its foundation. His concurrence in McDonald and his dissent in Raich both answer the question "what does the language of the COTUS as understood at the time of enactment say about this question?", and work from that point. If he concludes that accumulated precedent is in error, he gives it very little weight, if any.
|
I have always considered Antonin Scalia to be of that textual school, but perhaps I have been mistaken? Barret clerked for Scalia, and it appears that she has a more-or-less textual approach, so it will be interesting to see how she leans once she is in place and gets involved in cases.
Roberts, in particular, seems to me to place too much importance on
stare decisis, and to be unwilling to overturn precedent even when the precedent is obviously and blatantly wrong.