Sen. Cornyn's Daily Question for Judge Sotomayor - Question 6

Press Release

Sen. Cornyn's Daily Question for Judge Sotomayor - Question 6

What is the role of original intent and original public meaning in constitutional interpretation?

Explanation: The original intent of the Framers, and the original public meaning of their words, are an important source of meaning that can guide constitutional interpretation. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). The intent of the Framers and the original public meaning of their words are important for an obvious reason. The role of judges in constitutional cases is to interpret Constitutional text that the Framers enacted.

Judge Sotomayor's constitutional decisions have not relied extensively on the original intent or original public meaning of the Constitution. However, her decisions have occasionally mentioned the intent of the Framers in passing. See, e.g., In re Millenium Seacarriers, 419 F.3d 83, 93 n.9 (2d Cir. 2005) (referring to why the Framers vested the federal courts with admiralty jurisdiction); United States v. Heatley, 1998 WL 691201, at *6(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (referring to the Framers' goal of prohibiting general warrants in enacting the Fourth Amendment); Rodriguez v. Artuz, 990 F. Supp. 275, 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (referring to the Framers' understanding of the writ of habeas corpus).

I am glad to see that Judge Sotomayor has at least occasionally mentioned the Framers in her constitutional decisions. At the same time, it does not seem that she has actually relied on original intent or original public meaning in any of her decisions as a judge. As a result, in the hearings next month, I hope Judge Sotomayor can articulate her views of the proper role of the Framer's intent and the original public meaning of constitutional text in interpreting the Constitution.

Source