Short answer, originalism is the idea that any part of the Constitution should be interpreted as the founders understood it at the time it was written. This gets dicey in areas that have changed rapidly, like weaponry. Muskets, knives, and blackjacks were about all the weapons available at the time the Second Amendment was written, so what would the founders have thought of RPGs and personal armed drones and the like. Originalists say the court has to do a historical test on any law relating to gun control--that's the Bruen case. This stuff can get a bit complicated.
Unitary executive is a concept that's been around a while, but the Federalist Society and Trump have been pushing it hard. It's the idea that all executive power rests entirely in the President. So, for example, if the Fed is considered an executive branch entity, then, they say, Trump has the authority to fire Powell. This, as you know, can also get complicated.
Although Justice Katenji Jackson's comments are a bit flippant, and there's a tradition among the justices that they don't take personal swipes at each other, they often have, maybe just with more elaborate language. I always liked this one from a dissent by Justice Blackman in a securities case, where he said the majority "exhibits a preternatural solicitousness for corporate well-being and a seeming callousness toward the investing public quite out of keeping, it seems to me, with our own traditions and the intent of the securities laws."
Personally, I think she's justified in calling out other members of the court for putting ideologies and law aside and just letting the administration win, while that administration becomes more and more authoritarian. Somebody on the Court has to say something, and she's had the nerve to do it. |
