by Jorge Gomez • 1 minute
Many critics argue that the U.S. Supreme Court is “broken” and must be “reformed.” Why? Because they dislike how the Court has ruled in recent years.
Proponents of radical “court reform” claim that the Court is allegedly producing only “conservative rulings” on major cases, such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, and New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen.
But is this a fair critique? Or is the Court merely getting back to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning?
First Liberty Institute’s Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy recently partnered with the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding and the University of Chicago Federalist Society to host a symposium with some of the nation’s top constitutional and legal scholars.
Professors Gerard Bradley (Notre Dame), Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern) and Richard Epstein (Chicago Law School) and Adam MacLeod (St. Mary’s University) explore this topic, delving deeper into recent landmark Supreme Court decisions that have changed the course of America, and how to respond to critics who continue to undermine the Court’s legitimacy.
Watch below:
 |
|
|
