Originalism/Textualism vs. Pragmatism: Debating Judicial Philosophies

When delving into the U.S. Supreme Court's workings, it's clear that the justices' decisions are deeply influenced by their core judicial philosophies, predominantly categorized into two groups: originalism/textualism and pragmatism. This exploration into these perspectives will shed light on how they shape the Court's rulings (based on my personal observation, of course, your mileage may vary ).

Originalism and Textualism
Conservative justices are generally aligned with originalism and textualism. Originalism interprets the Constitution based on the understanding at the time of its writing. Textualism narrows this focus to the exact wording of statutes, advocating for strict adherence to their original meanings. Justice Antonin Scalia championed this approach, arguing that it prevents judicial imposition of personal views and adheres to the framers' intent.

However, the interpretation of 'original intent' itself can spark significant debate. For example, in discussions about the Second Amendment, conservatives might argue that 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' indicates an original intent of zero regulation. In contrast, liberals may contend that some level of regulation was always intended by the framers. This exemplifies how even within originalism and textualism, the interpretation of intent can vary, highlighting the complexity and sometimes the subjectivity in determining 'original intent'.

Pragmatism
On the liberal side, pragmatism often dominates, with justices like Stephen Breyer viewing the Constitution as a living document that must evolve to meet modern needs. This philosophy emphasizes the broader impacts of legal decisions, advocating for interpretations that address contemporary societal challenges. Pragmatists argue that the law must work effectively for the society it governs, which can sometimes mean adapting legal interpretations to new realities. They consider the consequences of their rulings, aiming to mold the law to better serve contemporary societal needs.

Nuances and Overlaps
While it's convenient to categorize justices as either originalists or pragmatists, real life shows more complexity. Justices may blend these philosophies depending on the specifics of a case. Asserting that originalists ignore outcomes isn’t entirely accurate—they would argue that their approach inherently considers the outcomes of creating a more stable legal system. Similarly, not all conservatives strictly follow originalism nor are all liberals solely pragmatists. Justices often bring a unique mix of philosophies to their decisions, influenced by the particular legal issues and broader contexts at hand.

Conclusion
Understanding the distinction between originalism/textualism and pragmatism helps us grasp the fundamental divides in how Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution. These philosophies significantly influence their rulings and, by extension, American law. While this framing simplifies some complex judicial thoughts, it offers a useful lens for viewing the Court's decisions and predicting future trends in its jurisprudence. As society and its challenges evolve, so too will the philosophies of those appointed to interpret its laws at the highest level, ensuring that the judiciary remains a pivotal element in the governance of the country.

My position:

I'm on the side of Justice Stephen Breyer, which is pragmatism. I recall Gorsuch stating that a 'good judge is not concerned with the outcomes of his rulings'. This philosophy, to me, is insane. Last time I checked, 'justice' is an outcome, and where a judge must conform to the letter of the law, there is the matter of outcome, but, when it comes to the Supreme Court, in my view, outcome is everything, this is consequence, in plainer terms. Let's be clear, no one is suggesting a judge (of the lower courts) should discard the letter of the law, for he or she is bound by it (unless it's ambiguous). I'm talking here about the Supreme Court, where a case comes to the court because of a law's ambiguity, and they are there to tell us what the law, and/or the constitution, actually means. In my view, 'justice' should be the law. Where there is doubt, let justice be the decisive factor. Justice should always be the outcome. Because, if justice isn't what the law is about, then what in hell is it about? Why, then, are they called 'justices'? Yes, justice should be blind, but that isn't the point, the point is that the symbol of jurisprudence is a lady holding up the scales of what? The scales of Justice. In the words of the notable legal analyst, former prosecutor, podcaster, Glenn Kirschner, 'Justice Matters'.

There are times when the law is clear cut, unambiguous, so these court 'interpretations' come into play when the wording of the law, or the Constitution, is broad, more ambiguous, more subject to interpretation, and this is where 'judicial philosophies' have a much greater influence over a justice's rulings. Personally, I do not want a justice of the supreme court ignoring justice, ignoring outcomes, ignoring consequences of their rulings. That is why I would always prefer pragmatists on the court. There is no correct way to interpret the constitution at the Supreme Court, there are only 'judicial philosophies'. Justices can rule however they please, they have that power. Of course, there is overlap and case by case rulings where these philosophical delineations are not readily apparent, and are subverted for one reason over the other, I'm just talking in a broad overview sense.

Now, the above is pure opinion, based on observation. If you ask for substantiation, I will scour the cases/documents/essays, etc., to see if I'm accurate to the best I can. If I can't, and an opinion was not based on actual rulings of the court by this or that court or some authoritative view, I'll concede your point, if your point contradicts mine, providing you are more accurate and can cite cases (etc) which contradict my opinion.

What I'm trying to do is figure out which judicial philosophy is better, as a 'north star' (noting the overlap and exceptions). So far, I think pragmatism is the better north star. Your feedback is valuable in this pursuit. But, snarky/mindless one/two liners, 'non arguments' etc., (see my sig), will be ignored.

Let's discuss.