I’m shocked that the intellectually bankrupt legal philosophy has intellectually bankrupt defenses of their theories!
The “We ‘fully and fairly’ represented the interests of the unenfranchised” theory doesn’t square with any post-enfranchisement law.
The “We ‘fully and fairly’ represented the interests of the unenfranchised” theory doesn’t square with any post-enfranchisement law.
Comments
Ugh! Can you point me to forceful anti-originalist writings on this topic?
Yeah, I teach a 1L DEI seminar centered on RBG’s work in the ‘70s for ACLU creating all that equal protection law that Barrett takes for granted. Suffice it to say she didn’t just walk in and say “of course this covers gender.”