Essays
May 16, 2022
Are We All Common Good Constitutionalists Now?
John Ehrett '21 analyzes the role Vermeule’s book plays
in calling for a return to better legal reasoning. Yet, even Vermeule's
solution may not address the root of the problem.
May 12, 2022
A Jurisprudential Red Pill: Part II
Evelyn Blacklock continues her commentary on Vermeule's Common Good Constitutionalism, showing the strengths of the argument, while also demonstrating some needed nuances between the Classical and the Enlightenment perspectives of law.
April 27, 2022
A Jurisprudential Red Pill: Part I
Evelyn Blacklock examines Prof. Adrian Vermeule's "Common Good Constitutionalism" and the alternative it offers to the status quo camps of jurisprudence.
April 20, 2022
The Conservative Legal Movement Sputters
Josh Hammer analyzes how liberal proceduralism is simply not enough for those in the conservative legal movement and points out a path forward for legal conservatives.
April 13, 2022
What the Hearings Missed
In the aftermath of Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, Hadley Arkes analyzes the Senate hearings. Despite some well-timed questions, Republicans ultimately missed their chance to put Judge Jackson on the record defending the right to kill unwanted children even after birth.
March 18, 2022
"It's Good (Not) to be the King": Qualified Praise for Michael McConnell
Anchoring Truths co-founder Garrett Snedeker offers two cheers for Prof. Michael McConnell's recent book on executive power under the Constitution.
March 8, 2022
Once More Unto the Breach: Arkes v. Whelan on the Overruling of Roe
In a response to Ed Whelan’s critique of “On Overturning Roe,” Prof. Arkes insists that the moral argument against Roe is the only logical one for judges who believe in the deep wrong of abortion. The pro-life cause rests on objective moral truths, not on value judgments, and as a result does not require judges (as Whelan claims) “to read their own moral convictions into the Constitution.”
February 25, 2022
Breaking the Sotomayor Mold
Kody Cooper argues that a new Supreme Court justice in the style of Sotomayor would fail to pass the "test of truth" when it comes to abortion, religious liberty, and takings. If the Senate Judiciary Committee cares about truth, it should therefore disavow the Sotomayor mold.
