Constitutional Originalism: What Is It and How Does It Impact the Supreme Court

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

When Republican leaders make judicial appointments, they are often looking for only one thing: whether a candidate adheres to the school of thought known as constitutional originalism.

There’s a simple reason for that singular focus. To originalism proponents, it signals that judges will remain steadfast to the intended meaning of the Constitution rather than to the many ways it could be interpreted today. To its detractors, it’s a “dog whistle” to those on the right looking for judges who will consistently rule in a conservative-leaning way.

-snip-

What is constitutional originalism?

Constitutional originalism is loosely defined as interpreting the Constitution “according to the original understanding,” says Harvard Law School professor Michael Klarman. What that means is focusing first and foremost on what the framers intended when they wrote the Constitution.

-snip-

For conservatives, the attraction of originalism is obvious. Rather than adjust the understanding of the Constitution to account for decades of progress on civil rights and liberties, this theory justifies a narrower, less forward-looking interpretation.

There was a time in American history when states could bar women from professions, LGBTQ people could be jailed for acting on their love, and abortion was criminalized. Interpreting the Constitution literally and as the white, male, property-owning framers supposedly intended offers little room for leeway.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/constitutional-originalism-supreme-court

[Freddie]

1. So what did the Founding Fathers have to say

About worker’s rights, women’s rights, voting rights…not a thing because none of those things existed then. Originalism is utter BS, just a cover for far-right ideology.

[jimfields33]

4. Actually the justices should follow what the constitution says.

The legislatures can change the way it’s written by constitutional amendment. We’ve done it 23 times or so.

[brush]

6. Originalists are full of sh_t, especially concerning the Second...

Amendment, civil rights and women's rights. And a woman original constructionist is a ridiculous, walking oxymoron as women were the property of their husband at the time the Constitution was written.

Coney Barrett is a perfect example of that ridiculousness.

[Jim__]

2. So according to "originalism," the 2nd amendment applies to muskets. Right?

[elleng]

3. right

[Girard442]

7. Being used by a "well regulated militia."

[Igel]

9. But we know that "well regulated"

didn't mean "subjected to a lot of limits".

It meant "well equipped" and quite likely "well trained."

Even then, it just means that if you want a militia that is well equipped and well trained, they need access to firearms. The presence of firearms is a prerequisite for the nominative absolute clause, not the outcome.

[MurrayDelph]

5. That's just their cover

In Scalia's time, he would take the answer he wanted, then look backwards to find some "original" context he was reverse-engineering his decision from. There was one week when he used the same "doctrine" for two conflicting views.

[slightlv]

8. "originalism" makes the Constitution a dead document,

much like reading the bible literally makes that "book" a dead document.

Interpreting the Constitution and applying it's principles to today's world takes time, effort, and deep thought. That's why republican judges just can't make the leap. It also makes it a living document. One that never "dies" but whose principles are forever ingrained in our law.