Harry Shannon
The U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe in originalism have been using an unusual method to help their decisions.
Originalism is the view that interpretations of the U.S. Constitution should be based on the “original meaning,” that is, the meaning understood by those who adopted the Constitution.
As many critics have pointed out, the adopters are all dead, so we cannot know their original meaning. But Amy Coney Barrett, the most recently appointed justice, proposed a solution: séances calling up James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution.”
We spoke to a clerk for one of the justices, who was present at the only séance to be held. The clerk asked to remain anonymous. She said that the justices at the séance were upset when Madison condemned originalism as ridiculous. He said that, in his day, no one would have expected cave dwellers to advise him and his peers in the late 1700s on how to make decisions.
The clerk reported that the justices wondered whether to hold another séance to talk with the late Antonin Scalia, a former justice who was a strong advocate of originalism. They even considered calling up Madison and Scalia at the same time, so they could argue their cases. But another clerk pointed out the twisted logic that would be involved: Scalia would be trying to persuade Madison that he did NOT mean what he was saying, which would contradict the very basis of originalism.
Instead, the justices decided to ignore what had happened. One even said they did not believe that you could call up the dead, anyway, but had joined in to be collegial. Another argued that maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg had interfered with the Ouija board.
One justice reported believing heart and soul in the theory of originalism so was not willing to accept the evidence from the séance. “I believe our Constitution was divinely inspired, so should last for all time.” The clerk said the justice didn’t answer when someone asked why, if it’s divinely inspired, it should have needed humans to make 27 amendments. But the justice did say that if a case came before the Court challenging the amendments, even the ones on free speech and guns, it would make for an interesting discussion.