Originalism or textualism are theories of jurisprudence. Actually, call them a theory is is giving them too much credence. As with much in the law, lawyers/judges like to use jargon to make it appear as if their opinions or interpretations are based on some type of test or objective criteria. So, originalism is nothing more than a judge looking at the text of a document and applying the meaning of the words used in the document, as they were understood at the time the document was drafted.
Textualism is just reading the words in the document. Only a judge/lawyer/legal scholar would think to come up with a term for reading and understanding words. That being said, proponents of these theories, especially on the Supreme Court of the United States believe (or have deluded themselves into thinking) that they are just reading the words in the law (typically the U.S. Constitution) and applying them to the facts of a specific dispute. Anyone who has read the Constitution knows this is nonsense. There are a number of examples of the Constitution stating something very clearly, yet SCOTUS will avoid that language or look to other language to reach their desired outcome. See e.g. the “necessary and proper clause.”
But, giving proponents of originalism or textualism the benefit of the doubt, it seems obvious that a computer can replace a judge, since all the judge is purportedly doing is objectively reading words in a document and applying them to facts in a dispute. Well, I asked Chat GPT about this. And, amazingly, AI disagrees that originalism or textualism is objective at all or that AI will replace judges.
Following is our discussion.
