General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPete Buttigieg nicely skewers the illogic of "originalism" as articulated by right wing Justices
Link to tweet
?s=20
Tweet thread by Seth Cotlar:
Pete nicely skewers the illogic of "originalism" as articulated by many contemporary conservative jurists.
He's right that many people in the founding generation (like Jefferson and Paine) understood that constitutions would evolve as the societies to which they applied changed. It should go without saying that "loose constructionists" like Hamilton thought the same thing.
There are few ironies more delicious than the fact that many of the best arguments against originalism can be found in the writings of the founders.
The founders disagreed with each other about almost everything. The Constitution was the product of many compromises and authored by committee. The idea that there is even a singular "original intent" to be discerned, let alone definitively nailed down, seems absurd to me.
"Judicial activism" is just a scare term one uses to denigrate a "judicial interpretation" that you disagree with but don't want to argue against, or can't plausibly argue against.
There is zero evidence that the founders intended the Constitution to serve as a document that 5 Supreme Court justices could use to repeatedly nullify attempts to bring the nation's policies and laws into alignment with a changing society.
You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of historians of the founding era who see any merit in Scalia-style originalism. Which is ironic, given that Scalia claims to be channeling the spirit and intent of the founding era.
Pete is spot on when he says that "originalism" is conservative judicial activism cloaked in the garb of humility. "It's not me, Scalia, saying this, it's Madison and Hamilton speaking THROUGH me." Such a claim is 100% BS.
Blue Owl
(50,259 posts)It's refreshing to hear a voice like Pete's after four years of dumbed-down Donny...
empedocles
(15,751 posts)beginning. So obvious.
BKDem
(1,733 posts)UTUSN
(70,645 posts)Dem2theMax
(9,637 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)Right winger heads would explode.
MustLoveBeagles
(11,583 posts)He eviscerated the originalism argument in easy to understand terms.I'm so impressed with Pete. I like him even more now than I did in the primaries. I hope he get's a cabinet position in the Biden administration.
Seasider
(168 posts)but my guess is he will take a Secretary of something job in a Biden administration go that route.
BootinUp
(47,078 posts)BComplex
(8,017 posts)really eye opening. I hope Kamala chooses him for her VP once she's elevated to President. He is the future of politics in the democratic party.
PhylliPretzel
(139 posts)The founders never wrote "judicial review" into the Constitution; read Article III on the Supreme Court to see for yourself. In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall claimed in Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court, for the first time, may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Jefferson was apoplectic.
For Scalia and his ilk to claim "originalism" when judicial review was not in the Constitution is ironic. It also indicates that 5 non-elected judges are the oligarchs of our country, and the people we elect to the Congress do not hold the power.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)during re-election. A lot of people think it's to satisfy the evangelicals , and it partly is , but the main reason is their big money donors want a conservative Supreme Court to rule in their favor on regulations etc. It's a way for them to control the country when they're not in power, thanks to Marbury vs Madison.
I read a biography on Pinochet and the author wrote about how a group of Republicans went over to Chile to advise him. They were adamant that he had to appoint conservative judges at every level. He did and it messed Chile up for decades, long after Pinochet was out of power.
Mike Nelson
(9,944 posts)... Pete would make a fantastic SC Justice!
jg10003
(975 posts)Educated in the law. Pete's talents are better used elsewhere.
grobertj
(187 posts)alwaysinasnit
(5,059 posts)eleny
(46,166 posts)K&R
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)fierywoman
(7,671 posts)my mind is being given access to pure oxygen.
dalton99a
(81,392 posts)Glaisne
(515 posts)As is every conservative claim ever made, is made or will be made.
elleng
(130,732 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,955 posts)How many times did they mention crypto-currency?
What restrictions did they suggest for Gene splicing?
Did they believe the armed forces should pay for transgender surgery?
Did they think homosexual people were subhuman like slaves?
paleotn
(17,881 posts)They had no concept of percussion mechanisms, much less cartridge ammunition. So, all you 2nd Amendment folks out there who hold fast to originalism, you have the right to posses and parade around with a musket. But I warn you, a proficient person can only get off about 3 aimed shots per minute. So if you're contemplating a mass shooting or taking over the Michigan state government, I'd recommend thinking twice.
heckles65
(547 posts)You'll get it to say what you wanted to say in the first place, and claim that a ghost made you say it.