The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Traditionalist Supreme Court
Professor Marc De Girolami's assessment of the Roberts Court.
Is the current Supreme Court an originalist court? Should it be? Professor Marc O. De Girolami has an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that the current Supreme Court has embraced traditionalism in its approach to constitutional interpretation, and that this is a good thing. It is a worthwhile read. Here is a taste:
This court is conventionally thought of as originalist. But it is often more usefully and accurately understood as what I call "traditionalist": In areas of jurisprudence as various as abortion, gun rights, free speech, religious freedom and the right to confront witnesses at trial, the court — led in this respect by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh — has indicated time and again that the meaning and law of the Constitution is often to be determined as much by enduring political and cultural practices as by the original meaning of its words.
The fact that the Supreme Court seems to be finding its way toward an open embrace of traditionalism should be broadly celebrated. To be sure, the court's traditionalism has played a role in many decisions that have been popular with political conservatives, such as the Dobbs ruling in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade. But it is not a crudely partisan method. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama nominee, has used it in a decision for the court — and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, has expressed some skepticism about it.
Traditionalism may not be partisan, but it is political: It reflects a belief — one with no obvious party valence — that our government should strive to understand and foster the common life of most Americans. The Supreme Court has relied on traditionalism to good effect for many decades, though the justices have seldom explicitly acknowledged this. Traditionalism should be favored by all who believe that our legal system ought to be democratically responsive, concretely minded (rather than abstractly minded) and respectful of the shared values of Americans over time and throughout the country. . . .
Tradition, in the law and elsewhere, illuminates a basic fact of human life: We admire and want to unite ourselves with ways of being and of doing that have endured for centuries before we were born and that we hope will endure long after we are gone. At its core, this is what constitutional traditionalism is about: a desire for excellence, understood as human achievement over many generations and in many areas of life, that serves the common good of our society.
Here is a link to the whole thing.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
one with no obvious party valence
lol... where do you think the terms "conservative" and "progressive" fucking come from?On gay marriage, are you progressive or conservative?
Who the heck is Marc O. De Girolami? I found little about him but commented at NYT that this smells of Vermeule’s “common good constitutionalism”, which claims to be Utilitarian “the greatest good for the greatest number”, but with “good” defined by conservative Catholics.
"But that's the way we've always done it." is perhaps the stupidest reason to support anything. And as near as I can tell, that's the length and breadth of his "argument".
Sure, I respect precedent and predictability, but sometimes things just need to change, e.g. see Brown v Board of Education or Griswold v Connecticut. Or perhaps the legal history of the first amendment which wasn't really enforced until the 20th century.
Aren't there many ways to make that change without judicial magical thinking?
What's the role, in your mind, of the Judiciary with this desired change?
It is really bizarre to me that the political side that tends to express wariness of the "tyranny of the majority" the most regularly is the side that is most insistent on requiring a large supermajority before protecting people's rights in a new way. They are totally in favor of a traditional (majority) understanding of government power to enforce cultural and social norms.
Why do you want to be ruled and governed by someones mere policy preferences and political opinions ? Do you think this preferences and opinions are unwavering?
You shouldn't find it bizarre; Imagine a tyranny index.
Rc=Ruling class
Pe=Peons being ruled over.
Tyranny=Pe/Rc.
So, if you've got an oligopoly situation, you might have a Tyranny index anywhere from a bit over 1 to something in the millions or billions.
A majority rule situation, if it really IS majority rule, your Tyranny index is at least going to be less than 1 .
Require a 75% supermajority to rule, and you get a tyranny index of 1/3!
Let people make their own damn decisions, and it drops to 1/10^6 or 1/10^9, effectively zero.
Let people make their own damn decisions...
You mean like in regards to pregnancy? Gender affirming medical care? Who they can legally marry?
Social conservatives have no interest in letting people make their own damn decisions. They might decide to do the wrong thing.
Your tyranny formula is also built on incorrect premises. There is no "ruling class" or "peons being ruled over" if everyone has an equal vote. That is the premise of representative democracy. The reason we end up with something like a 'ruling class' or ruling majority is that people end up breaking into factions and coalitions as they try to achieve a majority. Those coalitions then end up having a set of goals that result from the compromises people within the factions make in order for their coalition to be a majority that can control the government. The individual planks of a party platform, then, can be positions that don't have the support of the entire party and its supporters, let alone the whole country. They just reflect the goals of the 'ruling class' of the party elite.
Acknowledging that it is a "both sides" argument, both Democrats and Republicans have party leaders, or party elite if you prefer, that have goals not shared by all of their parties' voters. I think that is inevitable for any party that manages to gain enough support to win elections. A party that tries to maintain an ideology that all of its supporters would agree with, even if just on the basics and with wiggle room on specifics, would never win elections. People just don't ever agree that completely. I think that there is an old joke about 10 people being in a room and there being at least a dozen different opinions on any given political topic.
The libertarian idea of just wanting government to leave people alone is not held consistently by any politicians that win elections. There is always a large enough constituency of voters that wants government to enforce something on all of society that a winning party will include some ideas that break that principle.
Feel free to pick the party that only wants to impose its views on people other than you, or that only wants to impose views you agree with anyway. But there is no party that would drop your "tyranny index" low for everyone. And there never will be.
JasonT20 - "let the people make their own decision "
I have to agree with that concept. I suspect that most babies who are getting aborted would prefer to live. Let them have a say in the decision regarding their live or death.
I suspect that most babies who are getting aborted would prefer to live.
If you want to consider an embryo or fetus to be a baby, feel free. Just don't insist on imposing that on pregnant women that aren't you.
What ever it takes for you to justify killing an innocent life .
The fetus is still a human that wants to live
Let the baby have a vote
A fetus doesn't "want to live." It would need consciousness to have desires, and everything I've ever seen about our understanding of prenatal brain development is that it is not possible for a fetus to have conscious awareness of itself at least until after viability, and likely not until after birth.
Let the baby have a vote
Are you saying we should include fetuses in the census as well? Allow the parents-to-be to claim them as dependents? How exactly are you proposing we let them "vote"? Or do you really mean that you want to vote on their behalf against the rights of the woman that actually is taking the risks of pregnancy?
What ever it takes for you to justify killing an innocent life.
I rarely find people against abortion that really deserve the label of "pro-life". Most just want to protect "innocent" fetuses, while ignoring the needs of actual children. Or, more precisely, they want to use the power of government to force women to carry pregnancies to term even if they don't want to, but they aren't interested in the government doing anything to help children after they have been born. And for some problems, they actively work against the government trying to protect people (including children).
> “But that’s the way we’ve always done it.” is perhaps the stupidest reason to support anything.
If I’m reading him correctly, De Girolami has come up with an even stupider reason: “That’s the way we did it until 50 years ago.”
Sure, De Girolami writes, “We admire and want to unite ourselves with ways of being and of doing that have endured for centuries before we were born and that we hope will endure long after we are gone.” But his prime example is the Dobbs decision.
""But that’s the way we’ve always done it." is perhaps the stupidest reason to support anything."
No its not, because you at least know its worked for a while. Communism was new and different at the end WWII but it didn't take that long for it to fall apart.
Because its new and different is the stupidest reason to support anything.
No its not, because you at least know its worked for a while.
Well, it probably worked for the people that had the power to implement it in the first place. But did it work to the benefit of everyone?
"“But that’s the way we’ve always done it.” is perhaps the stupidest reason to support anything."
Change for the sake of change is every bit as stupid as "But that's the way we've always done it".
Change in the abstract is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Specific changes can be good or bad.
You've missed the point, which is much more about understanding why we've always done it that way than it is about change for the sake of change.
Most of what we do in any area of life we do for no better reason than that we have long done it that way. That’s why, right now, I’m wearing pants and a sweatshirt rather than a toga, kilt, or jerkin and codpiece. And most of the time that’s fine. But when real problems with how we do things surface, tradition is pretty close to useless in answering the question of what we do about the problem. Insight into tradition may help inform us about the limits of what we can expect to be able to change, which isn’t nothing, but it doesn’t answer any interesting questions.
It is possible to know why pants and sweatshirts are better than togas.
I agree most people don't think about it but that doesn't mean it's some great mystery.
"Strive to understand and foster the common life of most Americans" is just judicial populism.
Right, we should be more Democratic and the government should "strive to control and oppress the commoners for the benefit of the governing class and its client groups".
Maybe someone going by White Pride shouldn't throw around accusations about who other people want to oppress.
Why do you say that?
Just like anti-Zionism, there’s nothing inherently wrong with white pride… but it is extremely suspicious. And we all know that when it comes to you, the suspicions are more than justified.
Voltage!
"We all know" is just cover for your bigotry, hatred, ignorance, and lack of ability to tolerate people who believe differently than you.
Cover? I thought it was pretty explicit.
You claim bigotry, but the things you want with respect to voting, immigration, schooling, homosexuals, trans people, minority policing, women's choice, local gun laws, social media companies, etc. etc. are all about controlling outgroups.
Not even for the benefit of the majority, just for the sake of control itself.
I don't fully agree with this, but it applies to you quite well: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
The 'foster' part, for sure = judicial populism
The reason it’s so hard to pin down what exactly is meant by terms like “traditionalism”, “textualism”, and “originalism” is: these terms have no meaning. They are just blinders, fig-leaves to cover the justices who use them to pretend to justify ruling according to the wills of their masters who have purchased them for money.
“For [x] dollars, you can decide what ‘traditionalism’, ‘textualism’, and ‘originalism’ are, in the context of [this case].”
Labels, whoever makes them up, uses them, promotes divisive rhetorical instruments having little intrinsic substance. But, use them people will continue to do as the alternative is a longhand of time few bother with.
Fig leaves cover until they rot away to replenish the soil until the next tree grows.
Courts are not there to bypass legislatures !
You should really enjoy "living constitutionalism", then...
“Traditionalism may not be partisan, but it is political: It reflects a belief — one with no obvious party valence — that our government should strive to understand and foster the common life of most Americans.” Worthwhile? Uh no. As a judicial philosophy, at least as defined by this author, consummate elitist arrogance; or, in other words, bull shit. And this BS sounds too close to what Scalia brilliant took apart in his dissent to Planned Parenthood v Case. A “Nietzschean vision of… unelected, life-tenured judges, leading a Volk who will be “tested by following,” and whose very “belief in themselves” is mystically bound up in their “understanding” of a Court that “speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals…” Seems like we could do with some originalist thinking that discourages any political thinking in rendering judgments.
the meaning and law of the Constitution is often to be determined as much by enduring political and cultural practices as by the original meaning of its words.
Bizarre. There are lots of "enduring political and cultural practices" that should be, and have been, rightfully discarded as inimical to the kind of free society we claim to want.
This is nothing but an argument that those practices ought not be challenged. Nonsense.
A "traditionalist" pines for illusory "good old days," preferring a time when women, Blacks, agnostics, gays, Jews, transgender citizens, Asians, Muslims, atheists, and others were disadvantaged by old-timey intolerance, unearned privilege, and shitty laws.
A "traditionalist" can't stand all of this damned progress, reason, science, modernity, inclusiveness, freedom, diversity, and legitimate education, preferring instead backwardness, superstition, dogma, insularity, intolerance, authoritarianism, and stale, ugly thinking.
"Traditional values" is one of the euphemisms obsolete bigots try to hide behind in modern America because -- thanks to the liberal-libertarian mainstream's victory in the culture war -- our vestigial bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public. "Traditional values" resembles "family values," "conservative values," "religious values," and "color-blind" in that regard.
A "traditionalist" generally thinks it's the '70s and wishes it were the '50s (1950s or 1850s, depending upon the degree of obsolescence). In an America that becomes less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward, and more diverse daily, that wish is doomed.
A rather narrow view, no ?
Radical thinking started this country; but what is radical with today's regressive party called liberals ? Radical thought may overcome progressivism's faulty reasoning and exclusive nature.
Of both 'sides' being bankrupt in substance, thought, and energy, maybe now it's time for examining radical notions absent past restrictive labels, bigotry, intolerance, and stupidities.
“more diverse”
You used to say “less white” – have you been shamed into dropping that racist metric of progress?
I see nothing wrong with observing the fact that America is becoming less white?
It also is becoming less religious (the number of priests in my region has declined by two-thirds in 30 years), less rural (as the smart, ambitious young people flee those areas at high school graduation, never to return), less backward, and less bigoted.
Is this a great country, or what?
(That's from Night Shift, likely the best movie ever made about a whorehouse operated from a morgue. Here's the scene about Billy Blazejowski getting banned for "being too good," just like Artie Ray.)
You're not simply "observing" that the country is becoming less white, you're hailing it as a good thing, like becoming less bigoted.
You are simply a racist.
Whites have abused their privilege for decades and centuries. The predictable consequences of a non-white majority are, in America's short to medium term, desirable. But my point was that the declining white population and vote in America diminishes the electoral and political prospects of Republicans, conservatives, and bigots.
Does anyone disagree?
Can you name a privileged group in history which hasn’t abused its privileges? Point out such a group so we can learn their secrets.
Dominant groups tend to abuse their privilege by forcing their agenda down the out-group's throats, stomping on them, and looking forward to ultimately replacing them.
Is that a defense of white American bigots, or a reason not to root for more American progress at the expense of America's vestigial right-wing bigots?
Just to be clear: one of us has been spewing bigotry, and the other one of us has been calling the first guy out for it.
What the author is describing in this piece is nothing less than the originalism spelled out repeatedly by former Justice Scalia. A “Text and Tradition” approach to use the term he used over and over.
So it is not a new approach many of the current justices are utilizing but the one that has won the day. Scalian originalism. Here is an example from Rutan v Republican Party of Illinois:
“The provisions of the Bill of Rights were designed to restrain transient majorities from impairing long-recognized personal liberties. They did not create by implication novel individual rights overturning accepted political norms.
Thus, when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down. Such a venerable and accepted tradition is not to be laid on the examining table and scrutinized for its conformity to some abstract principle of First Amendment adjudication devised by this Court.
To the contrary, such traditions are themselves the stuff out of which the Court’s principles are to be formed. They are, in these uncertain areas, the very points of reference by which the legitimacy or illegitimacy of other practices are to be figured out. When it appears that the latest “rule,” or “three-part test,” or “balancing test” devised by the Court has placed us on a collision course with such a landmark practice, it is the former that must be recalculated by us, and not the latter that must be abandoned by our citizens.
I know of no other way to formulate a constitutional jurisprudence that reflects, as it should, the principles adhered to, over time, by the American people, rather than those favored by the personal (and necessarily shifting) philosophical dispositions of a majority of this Court.”
Professor Adler, appreciated the link to the NYT article. I don't read NYT very often, but this article was informative.
I don't see what the fuss is about. The article (much lengthier) seems to be explanatory, not proselytizing for a particular interpretative framework. It discussed originalism, living constitutionalism, and traditionalism in the context of Dobbs, Bruen, and a few other cases. I thought it was informative; pick the approach that appeals to you.
My dilemma: Is it possible to be principled and consistent, and say that: Depending on the issue presented, the interpretative framework used (living constitutionalism, originalism, traditionalism) might vary?
I'm not sure there's any principled basis for using living constitutionalism that's consistent with rule of law values. Since the whole point of 'living' constitutionalism is to avoid actually being bound by the Constitution where it conflicts with what the person employing the methodology thinks would be a good result.
When have you ever seen an advocate of living constitutionalism concede that the Constitution has 'evolved' in a direction they didn't like?
More 'everyone who isn't with me is in bad faith' telepathy.
Plenty of non-originalist methods of interpretation that are internally consistent and not outcome-oriented. There are books about them.
Plus, your method of originalism isn't even historically founded. Baude and others have done the historical work - the 'Constitution instantiates the morals of the late 1700s and only amendments can change that' was made up in the 1980s to get after the Warren Court's (admitted) excesses.
That's just not how anyone thought you should read a legal framework like the Constitution.
Do you really think the founders wrote 'The executive power' and then were like 'this is specific and directive, but no need to write out more - future generations can just do some serious historical hair-splitting to figure it out!'
"the Warren Court’s (admitted) excesses"
Examples?
Sherbert v. Verner.
Griswold is the right result but doctrinally weak.
Miranda/Dickerson is a silly check the box test.
Batson is another bright line doesn't solve the problem opinion.
Obscenity doctrine was a mess (it got better largely through benign neglect)
Sherbert v. Verner was a great religious-freedom case. All honor to Earl Warren and his colleagues!
Miranda (was Dickerson the federal counterpart?) was good – it represented natural inferences from the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination, in a context where cops often get on the stand and swear that a suspect confessed voluntarily, implausible asserting the suspect wasn't pressured by the authority of the armed guy holding him in custody.
Batson was post-Warren, and preremptories need to go away anyway.
Obscenity was indeed a messed-up subject based on what the court did with it, there is no hint the Constitution did away with obscenity as a category, and in any case there needed to be much more deference to juries than the court did.
As to bad decisions, I’d say Shapiro v. Thompson (over Warren’s dissent, struck down residency requirements for welfare), Powell v. McCormack (invaded the prerogatives of each house of Congress to determine the qualifications of its own members – both legal and factual issues), the dicta in the Little Rock case (they only had to uphold integration, they were wrong to say it’s the law just because we say it is), the voting-rights cases not based on race, disparate standing requirements for church/state plaintiffs versus, say, 10th amendmene plaintiffs…those are the ones which come to my mind.
"made up in the 1980s to get after the Warren Court’s (admitted) excesses"
how otherwise to roll back the excesses?
Lay out why they were excessive and overrule them.
Don't make up a doctrine, say everyone who disagrees with it is in bad faith, and then hide behind the lie.
When have you ever seen an advocate of living constitutionalism concede that the Constitution has ‘evolved’ in a direction they didn’t like?
When have you ever seen an advocate of living constitutionalism? I think it's mostly a strawman at this point. I've literally never seen it raised in support, only as a punching bag.
Is it possible to be principled and consistent, and say that depending on the issue presented, the interpretative framework used might vary?
It is, if you have a consistent framework for selecting the appropriate interpretive framework.
But nobody does. This is how today’s justices get to be outcome oriented without being quite so blatant about it: complete flexibility to choose which rigid framework to apply in order to get your preferred outcome. It’s like having multiple wives. If one’s got a headache and won’t give you what you want, no problem, just try another one.
Ok, you say it is possible, so long as you have a principled way to pick the interpretative framework: What is that?
Brett says living constitutionalism is just outcome-based with a nice name. Could be.
Still do not have that principled way to cycle between frameworks.
It could be textualism in odd years and traditionalism in even ones. It just needs to be articulated and followed.
Notably, no one has even tried. Why would they put a constraint on themselves like that? If you've got multiple wives you're gonna want to reap the benefits.
Marc O. De Girolami creates a phantom version of constitutional interpretation "traditionalism" so that the believers in a living constitution can mischaracterize the textualist and originalists with distortions of SC opinions.
I have no problem with a general presumption that long-established traditions are constitutional – or, conversely, that long-recognized rights cannot be infringed – unless of course the text invalidates the tradition in question.
So the tradition of racial oppression is repudiated by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, though alas enforcement did not follow immediately upon ratification.
The tradition of male-only suffrage is repudiated by the 19th Amendment.
The tradition of rule by kings and nobility is repudiated by the ban on titles of nobility and the assurance of a republican form of government.
The tradition of established churches and religious persecution is repudiated in the 1st and 14th Amendments.
And I don’t think a tradition of nonjury criminal trials can overrule the constitutional requirement of jury trials in *all* criminal prosecutions.
Those are just a few examples.
Correction: I referred to the tradition of racial discrimination, but it’s more complicated. In fact most of the antebellum constitution, with sad exceptions, didn’t recognize superior or inferior classes of citizens or the idea of human property. There was too much deference to state laws in this respect, but unlike the activist Taney Court, I don’t see an overarching principle of white supremacy or slavery. And in his infamous 1861 “cornerstone” speech, Alexander Stephens “boasted” that the Confederate constitution was the *first* to establish white supremacy as a governing principle.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is *the first, in the history of the world,* [emphasis added] based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.”
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
" though alas enforcement did not follow immediately upon ratification."
Actually, it did, until the Supreme court put a stop to it.
A critique