Publius is in fine form in this critique of Justice Thomas' dissent in Deck v. Missouri. He uses this opinion to illustrate the holes in originalism, and the related notion that certain judges like him who follow this doctrine are merely "interpreting the law" and not on occasion pushing their own policy/ideology preferences. The point here isn't that the result that Thomas wants is a bad thing, it's that originalism is deeply flawed.
Posted by armand at May 30, 2005 02:57 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the Courts