'Originalism is a dead letter': Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling
The Supreme Court's decision to grant former President Donald Trump absolute immunity for some of his conduct in seeking to overturn the 2020 election has attracted a chorus of criticism from those who saw it as another sign of conservative justices abandoning their own judicial philosophy.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's decision to grant former President Donald Trump absolute immunity for some of his conduct in seeking to overturn the 2020 election has attracted a chorus of criticism from those who saw it as another sign of conservative justices’ abandoning their own judicial philosophy.
The conservative justices were similarly pilloried for the court's ruling in March saying Trump could not be kicked off the primary ballot in Colorado over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
After both Trump victories, the conservatives on the court faced accusations that they abandoned their commitment to the judicial philosophy known as originalism — which says questions about the Constitution should focus on its original meaning. Certain justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in particular, repeatedly stress their reliance on history and tradition in deciding legal questions about whether a law is constitutional.
Most notably, the court has embraced such an approach in rulings that have expanded gun rights in recent years.
"At this point at this Supreme Court, originalism is a dead letter, to be resurrected and employed only when it suits the court's purposes," said Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal judge.
Rating: 5