If Justices are going to act like historians, then their work should be judged as one does the work of historians. Analysis of legal reasoning should take a backseat to analysis of the historicity of their factual claims (not only in punditry, but this should also be taught in law school).
Reposted from
Sheryl Weikal (The Leftist Lawyer)
Hearing Amy Coney Barrett say there's no history of du jour discrimination against trans people is MIND BOGGLING when I had to sue the state of Illinois for the right to be a lawyer whilst trans
Comments
I don't think this approach would reflect well on the Court, but if this approach was widespread I think the conversation would be fruitful.