Harvard Law Professor's Argument Against Originalism and Judicial Selection
Harvard law professor argues against originalism and for diversifying the Supreme Court with non-judges. He criticizes conservative judicial theories and calls for a rethinking of justice selection.
Key Points
- Critique of originalism and conservative judicial theories
- Advocacy for a broader range of experience in Supreme Court nominees
Pros
- Calls for a more diverse selection of Supreme Court justices
- Critiques conservative judicial theories like originalism
Cons
- Some may disagree with the idea of appointing non-judges to the highest court