But there’s something even more odd about how conservatives like Barrett apply originalism. Because they seem to believe that the “original meaning” of every word and phrase just happens to be a conservative meaning. And where they can’t find the meaning that they want, these dedicated preservationists have a second approach … throw it out. Throw it all out. Like the entire 14th Amendment.

snip

As far as the 14th Amendment goes, it includes what are now referred to as the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. In short, it says that everyone born in the United States is a full citizen, with the full rights due to a citizen, and can’t be deprived of those rights unless they’re given due process of law. All of this makes the 14th Amendment integral to questions of citizenship, and foundational for Civil Rights legislation. It’s such an important amendment, that legal scholars have called it “the second Constitution” for its attempts to tear out the elements of slavery built into the original document. Among other things, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests entirely on the authority granted to Congress by the 14th Amendment.

snip

Back in 2011, The Atlantic took a look at this question and how conservative Republicans became “14th Amendment deniers.” For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it’s not even the most radical view. The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate.

The Postal Service last month abruptly ordered its police officers to stop investigating mail theft that occurs away from post office property, the Postal Police Officers Association alleged Monday, suing Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to block a change they say could erode the safety of mail carriers and delivery.

Per the union, USPS implemented the change on Aug. 25, a day after DeJoy testified to Congress amid mounting concerns that policy changes he implemented were delaying mail service and could jeopardize record numbers of mail-in ballots expected in the presidential election.

The union argues that this unilateral change by USPS managers violates the collective bargaining agreement with the Postal Police Officers Association. The union is asking a judge to block the policy change pending arbitration and to declare that USPS leaders acted outside of their statutory authority.

(CNN)Jacob Blake, who remains hospitalized after sustaining multiple injuries, is now handcuffed to his bed, his family said.
Blake's uncle told CNN on Thursday that Blake's father visited the Wauwatosa, Wisconsin hospital where his son is recovering from at least one surgery. He was "heartbroken" to see that his son was handcuffed.
"This is an insult to injury," Justin Blake, the uncle of the victim, said. "He is paralyzed and can't walk and they have him cuffed to the bed. Why?"

To end testilying, Levine said, “I would entirely change incentive structures.” Officers would be rewarded for reporting on their colleagues’ lies and scrutinized when their stories do not line up. They would no longer be able to coordinate their stories before testifying, a common procedure that lets them iron out potential inconsistencies. Nor could they watch bodycam footage before providing their version of events, another perk that’s not provided to civilians. Prosecutors would be rewarded for rooting out unconstitutional behavior. Officers who lie, and prosecutors who tolerate them, would be terminated immediately. In short, the system would encourage police officers and prosecutors to focus less on winning cases and more on following the rules, even when a constitutional violation stands in the way of a conviction.