By Carl Nyborg
Constitutional "originalism" is one of those con games that's so absurd, it's offensive to have to explain why it's stupid.
Let me get this idea straight, when the Supreme Court is going to decide how the law is going to work going forward, they are going to disregard developments in academia, ethics, philosophy made between 1789 to present (231+ years, years where some kinda big stuff has happened) and Right Wing kooks are going to rule bases on what they believe a small group of 18th Century slaveowners would have wanted?
Kenneth's grandmother is a reasonably high level intellectual property lawyer with a name law firm. She notes that federal courts have not been clear on intellectual property law.
So, the Supreme Court, facing a complex intellectual property law case, is the judge going to say, "Don't bring me anything written in the last thirty years! I'm re-reading the Federalist Papers and having a seance with Thomas Jefferson!"
"Originalism" is a scam to invalidate court rulings the Right doesn't like.
This is what "Conservatism" is about: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."--Frank Wilhoit
The law works as a somewhat reasonable system of consistency b/c of stare decisis. That is, stuff that's been ruled upon is a done deal. We're not constantly relitigating it.
"Originalism" is a BS ideology that exists to relitigate *selectively*.
Every treaty the United States entered with Native Americans was violated by the US Gov't. Does "originalism" open the door for Native plaintiffs to say that originally those treaties were meant to be honored?
Of course it won't.
Because "originalism" is a lie. It's a power grab.
"Originalism" is a roundabout way to relitigate the U.S. Civil War.
"Originalism" is motivated by a mindset that significantly overlaps with Pol Pot's desire to reset Cambodia to "Year Zero".
What the Brett Kavanaugh hearings showed is the the GOP nominee can a) lie, b) demonstrate injudicial temperament, and c) have shady personal finances... and the Republicans are going to vote to confirm.
The Democrats are playing the Washington Generals, putting up half-hearted opposition that's good enough for affluent Baby Boomers.
Amy Coney Barrett is a corrupt twit who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. And yet, she'll probably be confirmed b/c the GOP needs racist judges to go along with their schemes to remove people from the voting process.