Articles tagged as Obergefell v. Hodges
-
Puzzle of 303 Creative –Hadley Arkes in First Things
In a piece for First Things, JWI Founder & Director Hadley Arkes analyzes how the issues of speech and religion have proven a challenge to the Court for years. should be clear that neither “coerced speech” nor “religious belief” can supply the ground of the judgment. At oral argument, he thought that Justices Kavanaugh and […] -
“When ‘Matter’ Really Matters” — Jesse Merriam
Jesse Merriam argues that Engel and Schempp are here to stay because the “matter” of modern-day society has corrupted the “form” of American jurisprudence. Rather than attempting to overturn these cases, conservative legal scholars and judges should learn how to make Founding ideas work in the twenty-first century. Some excerpts: “Incorporation of the Establishment Clause…means […] -
“Common Good and Common Belief in the Common Law” — Timon Cline
Analyzing past Supreme Court decisions on religion and public health, Timon Cline argues that the best judges consider public opinion as they attempt to rule in favor of the common good. Some excerpts: “The simple conclusion to be drawn from Locke, Viemeister, and Cole is that cognizance of the common good is a matter of prudential governance and that […] -
Bigotry, Time, and Moral Progress: A Review by JWI Affiliated Scholar Justin Dyer in the Cambridge Journal of Law and Religion
JWI Affiliated Scholar and Fellowship Faculty member Prof. Justin Dyer reviewed Who’s the Bigot? Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law by Linda C. McClain in the Cambridge Journal of Law and Religion. You can read the full book review here. Here is an excerpt from the book review: The implicit underlying moral […] -
“Originalism and Its Discontents” — David Forte at Anchoring Truths and Law & Liberty
Senior JWI Scholar David Forte responds to the co-authored piece “A Better Originalism” at JWI’s online journal Anchoring Truths. In a symposium in collaboration with Law & Liberty, Forte defends the place of positive law in a “correct originalism.” Some excerpts from the piece: “The authors coronate a new form of originalism, a ‘better originalism,’ an ‘originalism […] -
“A Better Originalism” – Arkes and Snedeker in The American Mind
A new statement of purpose published in The American Mind, written by Prof. Hadley Arkes, Garrett Snedeker, Joshua Hammer, and Matthew Peterson calls upon conservatives to adopt an originalism of moral substance. The authors write: “We are faced with a moment of political crisis. The Biden administration seeks to fundamentally transform the United States by […] -
“Toward a New Jurisprudential Consensus: Common Good Originalism” – Josh Hammer in Public Discourse
In an essay for Public Discourse, JWI Affiliated Scholar Josh Hammer implores conservatives to embrace a new approach to originalism that emphasizes the common good. He argues that originalism has become entirely unmoored from conservatism rightly understood, particularly in light of Justice Gorsuch’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. It must be replaced by a […] -
“Scenes From A Revolution? After Bostock”: Gerard Bradley in the National Catholic Register
JWI friend and Notre Dame law professor Gerard Bradley argues in the National Catholic Register that Bostock v. Clayton County need not be understood as a sweeping, regime-altering decision, such as previous Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. In Roe and Obergefell, the Court embarked on exercises of constitutional revision, […] -
“A Workable Substantive Due Process”: Affiliated Scholar Josh Craddock in the Notre Dame Law Review
In an entry for the Notre Dame Law Review, JWI Affiliated Scholar and Fellowship alumnus Josh Craddock ’19 joins with his former boss, Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and law clerk Joshua Dos Santos to address a major source of legal confusion: the Supreme Court’s Due […] -
“The Self-Made Trap” –Prof. Hadley Arkes in the Claremont Review of Books
Writing in the Winter 2015/2016 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, Prof. Hadley Arkes critiques a common conservative legal approach in defense of natural marriage: that the Constitution is silent on the subject. He shows why natural marriage ought to be defended on substantive grounds. “As the argument has played out in this vein, […]