Then in #101 you said "Who put those people on the court? The people that are trying to impose their leftwing social agenda on us."
The "we" of # 21 are not the same group as "The people" in # 191.
The "we" of #21, who I assume are conservatives, would put only conservative originalist judges and Justices on the courts if we had our way. "The people", who I assume are liberals, have put only liberal activist judges and Justices on the courts.
If putting only original intent jurists on the courts who will correctly interpret the intent of the authors constitutes imposing an agenda, then yes, I want to impose an agenda.
I look at it this way.
The representatives we elect place judges on the court. Let's assume that interpreting the constitution is the true goal since that is what this country was founded on, judges that overstep their bounds and make law instead of interpreting it are activists.
Doesn't this work both ways? Leftwing politicians put judges on the court who share their ideology. We elect those pols. So in effect, If you voted for Clinton(I know you didn't)you effectively voted to put Ginsburg on the court. Hence the people put an activist on the court.
My point is, why do we continue to let the left shape the argument that "originalist" means right wing?