Article excerpt

The value of originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation has been debated as long as the method has been used. Even originalists disagree on whether judges should follow the Constitution's original meaning or original intent, what value to assign to precedent, and whether originalism is politically motivated. Scholars debated these questions at the Twenty-Ninth Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium, held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. We are proud to publish Essays from several of this year's panelists.

Judge Thomas Griffith offers his thoughts on Judge Bork and how his own jurisprudence has been tempered by Judge Bork's legacy. Drawing on his own experiences during his confirmation hearing and on the court, and discussing recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Griffith discusses how the legal terrain has changed in the time since Judge Bork was nominated to the High Court, and what that means for judges.

We are pleased to publish a trio of Articles this issue discussing timely and important topics. Geoffrey Manne and Joshua Wright discuss the limits of antitrust law in the hypothetical case against internet behemoth Google. Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson offer a defense of traditional marriage rooted in the definition of marriage. Eric Finseth argues that contributors to public pension funds have a First Amendment right to not have their portion of funds go to ideological or political matters.

In the pages of this Journal's last issue, Richard Re posited that Congress could overturn the Court's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana. He argued that the Court's consensus-based argumentation left the decision subject to federal legislative override. In the wake of Graham v. Florida, Mr. Re revisits his exposition on Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and asks if Congress could also overturn this recent decision. …