So a fair and frequent question I get from my friends when I describe my optimistic view about the conservative Supreme Court justices is: “How can you be so naive?”
It’s a fair question, as this faith has led me to many errors. I had faith in Bush v. Gore. And in Eldred v. Reno. And in the Obamacare case (the result was consistent if not the reasoning). And in Golan v. Holder.
In each case, I was wrong. Some say because I read the “originalism” wrongly. Some say because I have too much faith in the “originalists.”
But regardless, here I go again: As I have written, in my view, a committed originalist would find it difficult to interpret the term “corruption” to refer to “quid pro quo” corruption alone.
So we’ll see.