March 6, 2009
Here's the audio from yesterday's event at the UW Law School, which was sponsored by The Federalist Society. McGinnis speaks for about 20 minutes, then I do a 10 minute commentary, and the rest is questions and answers. McGinnis contends that judges should interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning because this kind of interpretation will produce better consequences than other approaches to interpretation. He depends heavily on a belief in the superiority of a text produced by a supermajority — i.e., the Constitution — as understood by that supermajority. He chooses an interpretive methodology based on what is most likely to work out for the best even as he would exclude judges from thinking in normative or pragmatic terms as they decide particular cases.