Federal Judges Teach Originalism in Texas Law Schools

News Summary

Federal Judges Brantley Starr and Mark Pittman are leading an innovative course on Originalism at various law schools across Texas. By focusing on the historical context of the U.S. Constitution, students are learning the foundational roots of American law. The judges emphasize the necessity of understanding original intent in legal interpretations, asserting that this approach leads to a more balanced judicial philosophy. The course aims to inspire future lawyers to appreciate the principles that uphold the republic, while addressing the ongoing debates surrounding originalism in modern jurisprudence.

Federal Judges School Future Lawyers on Originalism in Texas

In the heart of Texas, a unique opportunity is shaking up the legal landscape! Federal Judges Brantley Starr and Mark Pittman have teamed up to teach an eye-opening course titled “Originalism & the Origins of the Federal Constitution” at law schools across the Lone Star State, including Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law. With a focus on how the Constitution was intended to function at the time it was drafted, students are diving deep into the historical context that shaped the nation’s laws.

What’s Cooking in Class?

As the semester progressed, students were not just learning about dry legal texts but were encouraged to reflect upon their vital roles in upholding the republic. At the closing class, Starr urged future attorneys to take Benjamin Franklin’s words to heart: it’s on their shoulders to keep the republic alive. This sentiment sets a serious but engaging tone for what it means to wield the power of law.

The judges are committed to illuminating the conceptual roots of our Constitution. They explore the idea of originalism, a judicial philosophy advocating for a reading of the Constitution as it was understood by its original drafters. As the landscape of the Supreme Court trends toward originalist reasoning, the judges emphasize how important this foundational understanding is for tomorrow’s legal minds.

Originalism: A Double-Edged Sword

While originalism enjoys favor among many current justices, it isn’t without its critics. Detractors argue that sticking too closely to ideas from centuries past can limit the law’s flexibility and relevancy in today’s increasingly complex world. However, both Starr and Pittman believe that an adherence to the original text ensures that judges don’t filter legal decisions through personal biases or contemporary views that may cloud judgment.

According to Starr, fostering a neutral set of principles is essential. He argues that it’s crucial for judges to maintain a focus on what the Constitution originally conveyed instead of allowing personal interpretations to take the spotlight. This approach aims to fortify the narrative of law as a collective societal agreement rather than individual whims.

A Course with Vision

This course didn’t spring up overnight. It was first launched by Judge Charles Eskridge, who was inspired by Justice Clarence Thomas. Concerned about the lack of historical teaching in law school, Eskridge initially brought the class to life at the University of Houston, aimed at giving students a grounded understanding of America’s Constitutional roots through “The Founders’ Constitution”. Instead of relying solely on modern interpretations, students dig into historical documents to understand the Constitution in its purest form.

The collaboration between Starr and Pittman has seen the course expand to various institutions, including Texas A&M School of Law. Deans across these schools, like Jason Nance from the Dedman School, are thrilled about what the judges bring to the classroom. Their real-world experience provides a unique learning environment that students can scarcely find elsewhere.

Changing Perspectives and Practices

Both judges also share their experiences that have shaped their own legal philosophies. After delving into historical materials, Pittman found himself shifting toward a preference for 12-member juries in civil trials, believing they provide a more balanced and fair pathway to justice. This pragmatic approach underscores the broader movements within conservative legal circles towards originalism and the debates that swirl around their interpretations.

Looking Ahead

As this enriching course wraps up, the judges express hope that the future will see judges from various political backgrounds take part in teaching originalism. By promoting constitutional understanding across the board, Starr and Pittman aim to elevate the legal discourse and keep the spirit of the Republic alive and glowing. It’s an educational endeavor that taps into the roots of where American law all began—making it as relevant today as ever.

Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic

• Bloomberg Law: Federal Judges School Future Lawyers on Originalism
• Salt Lake Tribune: Letter on Justice Clarence Thomas
• NBC News: Originalism Dead Letter? Supreme Court Majority Accused of Abandoning Legal Principles
• Deseret News: Why Constitutional Originalism Is Not a Partisan Legal Theory
• Wikipedia: Originalism