We the People: 黑料不打烊 Law鈥檚 Constitutional Journal hosted an event featuring discussion among 黑料不打烊 Law faculty, including former Chief Justice of the N.C. Supreme Court Cheri Beasley, Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger Jr., and Professor Enrique Armijo
At a moment when court decisions are dissected, debated and often cheered or criticized along partisan lines, a panel of 黑料不打烊 Law faculty and jurists convened to discuss a fundamental question: How should judges reach their decisions?
黑料不打烊 Law students and faculty gathered for 鈥淛udicial Interpretation and Review Under the United States Constitution,鈥 hosted by We the People 鈥 黑料不打烊 Law鈥檚 Constitutional Journal.
The program featured retired North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley, 黑料不打烊 Law鈥檚 Sandra Day O鈥機onnor Professor of Law; North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger Jr., an adjunct professor at 黑料不打烊 Law; and Professor of Law Enrique Armijo, a constitutional law scholar. Professor of Law David Levine, who also serves as faculty adviser to We the People, moderated.
Their conversation centered on three themes: competing approaches to constitutional interpretation, the growing public and political pressure on courts, and how judges navigate decision-making in practice.
A central focus was the longstanding debate between originalism and the idea of a 鈥渓iving Constitution.鈥
Berger said he follows a textualist approach grounded in original meaning, cautioning against judges imposing their own will on constitutional interpretation.
鈥淚f interpretation relies on will, then the Constitution can mean anything at any time,鈥 Berger said, pointing to the amendment process as the appropriate avenue for change.
Beasley characterized judicial review and interpretation as a pendulum that swings back and forth throughout American history, and said that the Constitution must function for the country as it exists today. She pointed out that the Founding Fathers wouldn鈥檛 have considered her, a Black woman, as deserving of rights 鈥 let alone able to serve on the court.
Armijo pointed to processes and landmark cases, like Brown v. Board of Education, as examples where historical meaning did not control modern outcomes. He framed constitutional interpretation as competing theories that provide the 鈥渞easons for the reasons鈥 behind judicial decisions.
Panelists also addressed the pressures shaping today鈥檚 judiciary.
Berger described a 鈥渃heerleading鈥 dynamic in which the public focuses more on outcomes than legal reasoning. Beasley pointed to the influence of money in judicial elections and the challenge of balancing transparency with safety, citing concerns about threats against judges. Armijo noted that decisions in high-profile cases have become increasingly predictable in a more politically polarized environment.
鈥淵ou can often predict how individual (U.S. Supreme Court) justices are going to vote,鈥 Armijo said, adding that partisan politics risks reducing the rule of law to a scoreboard of judicial appointments.
Berger emphasized the importance of consistent methodology, even when outcomes are difficult. Beasley said judges inevitably bring their life and professional experiences to the bench, but are bound to apply the law faithfully, balancing human perspective with legal obligation.
鈥淚s there some level of humanity in decision-making? I believe there is 鈥 and I don鈥檛 know that that鈥檚 a bad thing.鈥
