If a Theory Tends Toward Abuse, It's Probably a Bad Theory

Over at the Originalism Blog, David Weisberg writes about Michael Ramsey's post arguing that originalism has constrained the Supreme Court from actively outlawing abortion on Constitutional grounds. I criticized Ramsey's post here.

Ramsey was responding to Paul Waldman, who wrote in the Washington Post that Supreme Court nominees lied when they testified at their confirmation hearings that originalism was a neutral judicial philosophy. As Weisberg characterizes it:

Paul Waldman, writing in the Washington Post, claims that the recent arguments in Dobbs reveal that Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees perpetrated “a lie, scam, con” when they testified that originalism, as they understood it, was a judicial philosophy that was neutral as to the outcome of any particular legal case or issue.  That is not a criticism of originalism.  It is instead a criticism of particular individuals who identify as originalists.

Originalists often defend their theory against criticism that judges and Justices fail to properly implement it by claiming that this a problem with practice rather than theory. Some have gone so far as to argue that originalism as a standard should be entirely divorced from considerations of implementation.  

Weisberg returns to this theme later in his post:

When one questions the good faith of the practitioners of a legal theory, rather than analyzing and criticizing the legal theory itself, a disheartening symmetry emerges.  Each side can say of the other: we do not believe that the reasons stated in your judicial opinions or your scholarly articles are your true reasons; the one true reason is your policy preference.  Similarly, each side can say: in deciding Case X, we did not adopt the most extreme position on the spectrum of policy preferences; this proves our decision is grounded in law and not in policy preference.  And the “liberal” side says that weakening or overturning Roe is a step toward a future originalist decision that the Constitution bans abortions in almost all circumstances, while the “conservative” side says that Roe itself is a first step toward a future living-constitutionalist holding that the Constitution prohibits any federal or state regulation of abortion.

Both of the claims Weisberg makes fail to make a resounding case for originalism.

If an interpretive theory tends toward abuse, it is probably a bad theory. A theory of constitutional interpretation may, by its nature, lend itself to misapplication or use as a cover for political goals. It's a blanket assumption for most originalists that the broad family of theories that they label "living constitutionalism" (read: just about anything other than originalism), are such theories. Living constitutionalism tends to result in its adherents simply applying their policy preferences rather than engaging in interpretation. A substantial component of originalism's popular appeal is that it supposedly sidesteps this problem. The original public meaning of the Constitution is a verifiable Truth that can guide decisionmakers and prevent them from resorting to deciding cases based on their political whims. 

To be sure, this characterization of originalism versus living constitutionalism is an oversimplification of the academic literature. Much has been written by academics on various sides of the debate arguing for other normative reasons to accept originalism over alternate theories. But this discussion is largely isolated in the academic sphere. In politics and popular discussion, originalism continues to be praised for its constraining power--how it prevents "activist" judges from "legislating from the bench." At least, this is how originalism is praised when it is not used as a barely-concealed synonym for promising conservative results.

If originalism gets its appeal (or a substantial portion of its appeal) from its ability to constrain judges from deciding cases based on policy preferences, then it is concerning if judges use the theory as a cover to reach decisions based on political preferences. This is supposed to be the outcome that originalism should prevent, after all. Weisberg claims that this type of criticism can be leveled against practitioners of any theory, but this isn't always the case. Some theories of interpretation may call for readings of constitutional provisions that lead to certain types of policy outcomes or that have certain practical results. Such an approach would be unacceptably political if explicitly employed by a self-proclaimed originalist, but it defines the approach of the other interpreter. A theory of interpretation that largely is based on policy considerations is not mis-implemented when a judge decides cases based on those considerations. There may be other reasons for disliking the theory--but disingenuous implementation and a lack of transparency is not one of them.

But politicized decision-making is a problem for theories that purport to be neutral--particularly for theories like originalism that gain much of their popular appeal from claiming to be neutral. If a theory, by its nature, tends to be abused in practice--if, when implemented, it consistently results in decisions in line with political preferences rather than its proclaimed neutral principles--this is a problem for the theory. And as much as the theory's proponents may point to instances of misapplication of the theory as problems with judicial actors rather than the theory itself, these instances are evidence that the theory itself tends toward misapplication and abuse. If a purportedly neutral theory ends up being misapplied most of the time, that's a reason to have second thoughts about the theory itself. After all, all of this theorizing about law and interpretation doesn't have an impact on the real world until a court applies the theory.

I've argued elsewhere that originalism tends toward abuse--primarily to the extent that it cannot be rigorously and feasibly implemented, and that this leads to decisions based on other, largely political, considerations. Those like Weisberg who would dismiss this criticism as a problem with practitioners rather than the theory itself forget that law is shaped and enforced by practitioners. Losing this perspective all too often results in ignoring reality for the sake of theory and failing to appreciate the real world implications and consequences that motivate these discussions in the first place.

Originalism is Neutral Because the Court Hasn't Outlawed Abortion Everywhere?

That seems to what Michael Ramsey argues in response to this column by Paul Waldman.  Waldman argues (fervently) that conservative justices vote their political preferences and are not constrained by purportedly neutral theories of interpretation:

It was all a lie, a scam, a con: the assurances that they were blank slates committed to “originalism” and “textualism,” that they wouldn’t “legislate from the bench,” that they have no agenda but merely a “judicial philosophy.”

Somehow that philosophy nearly always produces results conservatives want: undermining voting rights, enhancing corporate power, constraining the rights of workers, enabling the proliferation of guns, and now most vividly, allowing state governments to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will.

Ramsey takes issue with this:

But the abortion case actually shows the opposite of Waldman's claim.  The conservative legal movement doesn't want just to overturn Roe; it (or at least part that cares most about the issue) wants to outlaw abortion.  In Dobbs, though, at most the Court may merely withdraw the constitutional bar on abortion restrictions so that the question can be resolved by the political branches. 

Why not do more?  Why wouldn't the Court rule that states that permit abortion violate the Constitution?  If the conservative Court really believes it can "legislate from the bench" to "produce[ ] results conservatives want," isn't that the outcome we would expect?

Surely the Constitution can accommodate that conclusion.  As many on the left have argued, the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses are open-ended and can be read to appeal to broad principles to be applied in light of contemporary morality and policy.  If, as anti-abortion conservatives believe, human life begins at conception or some point near to it, an aggressive living-constitutionalist conservative could find in those clauses a protection for unborn life.  Far less plausible claims have been made and accepted by courts on behalf of the policies of the left.

The conservative originalist Justices on the Court are not going to rule this way, and Justice Scalia -- as firmly anti-abortion as anyone -- never considered it.  The reason is originalism.  Though a few scholars have argued to the contrary, the overwhelming mainstream originalist position, among both scholars and judges, is that the Constitution's original meaning does not protect unborn life.  (See here from Jonathan Adler: Why the 14th Amendment Does Not Prohibit Abortion.)  It is the Justices' commitment to originalism and textualism that prevents them from legislating from the bench to achieve conservative policy goals in the abortion debate.  (And originalism is criticized by some conservatives on this ground.)

Ramsey claims that originalism is what prevents conservative Justices from affirmatively outlawing abortion. But this is what overturning Roe would do, to a significant extent. If the Court overturns Roe by upholding a ban on abortion, the effect is that abortion is banned in the affected jurisdiction.  Not only that, but it's immediately banned in 21 other states as well. Overturning Roe has the practical impact of banning abortion immediately in nearly half of the states. 

Sure, it isn't a nationwide ban. But once Roe is overturned, how soon will it be until there is federal legislation to ban abortion nationwide? From betting that's going on in academic spheres, it look like the expectation is a couple of days. With Roe out of the way, lobbying and support for such a law will redouble, backed by assertions that it has the Court's blessing. I hope that this is a pessimistic view of things--maybe the overturning of Roe will light a fire under democrats and prompt them to take action. But I'm not optimistic this will happen.

Such a federal law wouldn't be a constitutional decree. But under this chain of events, the conservative Justices' goal of outlawing abortion would be achieved with no other Court action beyond overturning Roe v. Wade. The Court would not suffer the institutional loss of credibility that an aggressive, constitution-based ban on abortion would entail. The Court would therefore be free to support conservative policies and goals under the guise of originalism's neutrality in any number of other cases and contexts.  Ramsey claims that a refusal to affirmatively outlaw abortion on constitutional grounds is evidence of originalism's constraining effect. A far more plausible explanation is that conservative justices want to preserve their influence and credibility, and can do so at no cost, since most of the work they want to see done will be done for them by other political actors.

Just because the Court doesn't take an immediate and drastic turn to the right and capitulate to the wildest dreams of the most extreme conservatives does not prove that originalism is the neutral, constraining principle that its proponents claim it to be. Claiming that this is what must be demonstrated to prove that originalism covers up political decisions is a disingenuous tactic that moves the goalposts and ignores political context.