Posted on 10/22/2020 6:29:03 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In 1987, Robert Bork was denied confirmation to the Supreme Court because his originalist beliefs were deemed a serious threat to constitutional rights. Originalism is no less dangerous for those rights today, yet Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s repeated statements professing her belief in originalism have been met with little objection.
Originalists believe that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it was adopted and that it can change only by constitutional amendment. Under this view, the First Amendment means the same thing as when it was adopted in 1791 and the 14th Amendment means the same thing as when it was ratified in 1868.
But rights in the 21st century should not be determined by the understandings and views of centuries ago. This would lead to terrible results. The same Congress that voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, which assures equal protection of the laws, also voted to segregate the District of Columbia public schools. Following originalism would mean that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided in declaring laws requiring segregation of schools unconstitutional.
In fact, under the original public meaning of the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional to elect a woman as president or vice president until the Constitution is amended. Article II refers to them with the pronoun “he,” and there is no doubt that original understanding was that only men could hold these offices.
Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has rejected originalism and protected countless rights that cannot possibly be justified under that theory. For example, the court has interpreted the word “liberty” in the Constitution to protect the right to marry, to procreate, to custody of one’s children, to keep the family together,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So you posted this for a reason and I ask yet again what it means to you instead of posting and running off
Batter up
No, Erwin, it is dangerous to allow un-elected judges a blank check to interpret the Constitution to coincide with their personal beliefs and biases. That is a complete rejection of the separation of powers and of representative government. We might as well have a Tsar ruling by diktat.
I guess then that we can say the same about muskets and the 2nd amendment that leftists are always whining about.
The educated & sane mind has to be boggled by this communist garbage...
Anyone who supports such a view, as stated by the NYSlimes, is a cancer that needs radical treatments to be cured...
Better to live by the original intent of our Constitution than to delegate its interpretation to whoever runs the Democratic party.
Do you really want your Rights decided (or cancelled) by the fashion of the moment?
RE: So you posted this for a reason and I ask yet again what it means to you instead of posting and running off
My response is and has always been the same for every single response similar to yours — to elicit refutation and discussion.
I’d like to read your refutation to this article -— I’LL WAIT.
“But rights in the 21st century should not be determined by the understandings and views of centuries ago. This would lead to terrible results.”
Category error - the Court is not a policy making body and ought not concern itself with results.
Yes! If you don’t like how it was written, Amend it!!! That’s how it works.
Dear Erwin,
you should be disbarred, you filthy anti-Catholic scumbag.
Love,
ND76
Yes, yes we do. Those rights are not anchored to the past and the mores of the time. They are anchored to eternal truths about the dignity of the human person and government’s role in protecting and preserving that dignity for the betterment of society. They are no earned. They are not the largesse of our rulers. They are not mutable, (well, not counting really bad SCOTUS decisions). They are not irrelevant. They will be defended.
It sounds like Erwin has a war on women going. Poor little boy.
Naw, screw social norms of the last several thousand years. Let’s base things on social norms of the last few months.
What could possibly go wrong?
“It sounds like Erwin has a war on women going. Poor little boy.”
Women who procreate, at least.
“Following originalism would mean that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided in declaring laws requiring segregation of schools unconstitutional.”
It would mean no such thing. Brown vs Board of Education found that segregation of schools did not offer equal protection. Separate but equal was a rational offered to show segregation did not violate the 14th amendment. That rational failed.
I should also mention the decision to segregate D.C. schools was not a matter of a state denying equal protection to its citizens and I am not sure whether D.C. not being a state would have been in violation of the 14th amendment when it segregated the schools.
“Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has rejected originalism and protected countless rights that cannot possibly be justified under that theory. For example, the court has interpreted the word “liberty” in the Constitution to protect the right to marry, to procreate, to custody of one’s children, to keep the family together,..”
Yeah we get it. The Supreme Court has screwed up a lot. Maybe not in the decisions referenced above but certainly in others.
Karl Marx’s texts are a century and a half old (centuries) and the Left thinks that is the true prophet. Seriously they use Marxism to explain science.
Bill of rights guaranteeing this chick the right to opine in print - 1791 Centuries ago.
Let’s just MAKE the NYTimes shut the f*** up if that’s what they think.
YES! You’re damn right we do.
If we want to change that we can - its called the amending process. We can change the constitution any time we want. What it requires though is actually obtaining a political consensus. That means persuading your fellow citizens - not simply dictating by judicial fiat - aka the Leftist way - with an unelected black robed “super legislature” answerable to nobody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.