Ryan Abercrombie: Scalia's concurrence in Conroy v. Aniskoff decried use of legislative history in statutory analysis because it essentially turns lawyers into untrained historians and bills clients for the privilege of their amateurism. Somehow that's perfectly fine for constitutional analysis though.

These mistakes originalist justices are making aren’t about disputed interpretations of history, with evidence on both sides. They’re pulling quotes out of context to attribute ideas to founding figures that those figures adamantly opposed. (via @andycraig.bsky.social) reason.com/volokh/2024/...

The Supreme Court's Dubious Use of History in Department of State v. Munozreason.com Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.

Scalia's concurrence in Conroy v. Aniskoff decried use of legislative history in statutory analysis because it essentially turns lawyers into untrained historians and bills clients for the privilege of their amateurism. Somehow that's perfectly fine for constitutional analysis though.

This is a very good point.

Post