|
Innocentđź•·Abroad@jjgass.bsky.social |
Reminds me of Scalia. Part of his originalism was insisting that an act be described as specifically as possible. When you do that, it’s usually obvious that there’s no history of believing there’s a protected right to engage in that act. I think we’ll see the opposite approach with “official act.”
1 replies 0 reposts 15 likes
|
|
Innocentđź•·Abroad
@jjgass.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Eg: Man claims constitution protects parent-child relationships. Scalia: in the 19th C, did the law protect the ability of the biological father of a child born to an adulterous woman who was married to another man to be declared the child’s legal parent?
0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes