Listen and subscribe to the podcast on your mobile device:
On Apple Podcasts | On Spotify | On Stitcher | On Google Play | On YouTube
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. With only weeks until the 2020 presidential election, liberals and progressives have lambasted President Trump for attempting to fill the seat so close to Election Day. Those who oppose Barrett’s nomination view her as too extreme, highlighting either her Catholic faith or just that, by virtue, she’s a conservative woman and jurist who subscribes to the judicial philosophy of being both an originalist and a textualist, part of the Antonin Scalia school of thought. How would those judicial philosophies play out if confirmed?
My guest today is Andrew Heaton, he’s a comedian, contributor for the libertarian publication, Reason Magazine, and host of the political and comedic podcast, “The Political Orphanage.”
On today’s show, we’re going to discuss the differences between the judicial philosophies of originalism, textualism, and living constitutionalism, what Amy Coney Barrett’s hurdles are in the Senate confirmation process, and how the Supreme Court became so powerful and so politicized.
“Hashing it Out” is a podcast hosted by Siraj Hashmi, Washington Examiner’s commentary video editor and writer. Each episode includes a political guest to offer historical context of the news and politics of the day and insight into how we got to where we are. If you want to find the deeper meaning behind current events, then “Hashing it Out” is the podcast for you.
