Not all members of the Court approach originalism in the same way, as seen in the case of CFPB v. CFSAA. The 7-2 split in the top-line decision highlighted different Justices’ interpretations of the Constitution. Justice Thomas took a textualist approach, while Justice Kagan and others looked to post-enactment practice. The unusual concurrence by four Justices raised questions about the majority opinion and the potential for a fractured decision.
Key points from the case include Justice Thomas emphasizing the need for a clear theory in legal arguments, and Justice Kagan drawing on Federalist 37 and the concept of liquidation. Justice Jackson’s citation of McCulloch v. Maryland highlighted the importance of judicial restraint in interpreting the Constitution.
Overall, the case of CFPB v. CFSAA showcased the diverse approaches to constitutional law within the Supreme Court, emphasizing the complexity of legal interpretation and decision-making.
I’m not entirely sure why, but there was definitely some intentional consideration given to the matter.
During the oral argument in this case, Justice Jackson focused on the lack of any “textual hook,” while Noel Francisco argued that his position was derived from the text and structure of the Constitution in alignment with its overarching purposes. Jackson’s concurrence refutes this assertion.
Although I may not always see eye to eye with Justice Jackson, her thoughtful approach to these issues never fails to impress me. She is not reactionary in her views, and her commitment to originalism is unwavering.
Justice Alito’s dissent emphasizes the unprecedented nature of the CFPB’s funding structure, arguing that it poses a serious constitutional problem due to its lack of historical precedent. This echoes the central argument in NFIB v. Sebelius, where the law was deemed unprecedented.
The Kagan concurrence dismisses the novelty claim surrounding the CFPB’s funding scheme, suggesting that it would have been acceptable in the late 18th century.
Overall, the article delves into various legal aspects and historical references, offering a unique perspective on the issues at hand.
Source link
