September 25, 2013  ·  Lessig  · Reblogged from  Tumblr

So a fair and frequent question I get from my friends when I describe my optimistic view about the conservative Supreme Court justices is: “How can you be so naive?”

It’s a fair question, as this faith has led me to many errors. I had faith in Bush v. Gore. And in Eldred v. Reno. And in the Obamacare case (the result was consistent if not the reasoning). And in Golan v. Holder.

In each case, I was wrong. Some say because I read the “originalism” wrongly. Some say because I have too much faith in the “originalists.”

But regardless, here I go again: As I have written, in my view, a committed originalist would find it difficult to interpret the term “corruption” to refer to “quid pro quo” corruption alone. 

So we’ll see. 

(Original post on Tumblr)

  • http://www.leather--jackets.co.uk leather jackets

    In each case, I was wrong. Some say because I read the “originalism” wrongly. Some say because I have too much faith in the “originalists.” ????

  • pjz

    “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. ” — RAH

    I suspect you’re insufficiently cynical (not a bad thing!) to be able to take this to heart.

    Keep up the good work!

  • Dave Latham

    “Doing the same over and over again and expecting the different results.”

    That’s perseverance.