Free Exercise and Conservative Judicial Overreach

During the Covid-19 pandemic, some judicial conservatives have eschewed the virtue of constraint in favor of an ahistorical and excessively libertarian notion of the free exercise of religion. To achieve the correct balance between liberty and order, and to prevent activist judges granting religious exemptions in areas outside of their expertise, conservatives should return to a more realistic view of the limited role of the courts in the regulation of religious practices.
Calvin Coolidge is an exemplar for conservative leaders because he was the very opposite of an ideological dreamer; he saw his vocation as a duty to provide the country that elected him with honest and frugal government that respected limits.
Originalism must guard against an overconfident reliance on history. Restraint and judicial caution are needed in an age of judicial overreaching.
An important book from the 1980s can teach today’s Republican presidential candidates the importance of classical conservatism.
A new book by Noah Feldman explains how Roosevelt’s jurists came to power, and how their constitutional philosophies and disagreements shaped the court.
One man’s biography becomes the story of jurisprudence when constitutional interpretation is governed by personality and politics.
In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have abandoned judicial restraint.
The recent actions of New Jersey governor Chris Christie have stirred up a political storm, but they are a reminder of the principles that underlie our politics.
The Supreme Court’s bad ruling in the DC handgun case may soon undergo a drastic and very damaging expansion.