Agnostic.com

5 9

The Pernicious Originalist Hoax

The “originalist” view of judicial; thought, put forth ay Scalia and embraced by Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas, is nothing more than a deliberate sham designed to try to provide cover for conservative ideological bias in judicial rulings. That bias is easily exposed by any thinking person with knowledge in social sciences.

The originalist position states that we must interpret the U. S. Constitution in the language which was used at the time of its writing and that those original meanings are written in stone and must not be altered . That stance creates multiple serious problems

In order to interpret the words of constitutional provisions exactly as used in the late 1700s. one would have to be an expert in the linguistics and culture of those times. None of our federal judges have such expertise. As an example, our Republican Supreme Court judges interpret the Second Amendment as though it means that all people have the right to carry any loaded gun with them on our street at any time, and that the amendment authorizes private militias.

That interpretation is false. “The right to keep and bear arms” at the time of the writing of the amendment meant the right to be a part of a local, regional or state authorized force – not to strut around toting guns. Further the amendment called for well-regulated militias, that is militias organized by and controlled by local, regional, and state governments. These false interpretations have resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of American lives every year in the present. And the Supreme Court judges who have ruling falsely on gun control bear responsibility for that loss of life.

Next, the originalist hoax is basically saying that the founders did it right the first time and we dare not change what they did. That stance I can think of no instance in human history when a group of human beings did anything perfectly the first time they tried. is either pure ignorance or deliberate falsehood. Further, any person who knows his or her history understands that the U.S. Constitution was simple the best compromise when would be accepted by the 13 by the 13 states or colonies. They all knew that it was not perfect and that it would need to be changed over time. Thomas Jefferson even write that a new constitution should be written every 19 to 20 years as cultures and technologies change over time. If let the huckster originalists continue to ignore these facts, we do so at our -- and our nation’s -- peril.

In short, we must either shame these judges acting on political ideology instead of facts, logic and real jurisprudence into acting truly on behalf of our nation and citizens, or we must expand the court and limit term of office, as well as developing and enforcing a code of ethics for them.

wordywalt 9 Aug 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Problem is communication is not an exact science and add time and vernacular changes only make things worse. Despite those that say they are going back to the original intention no one can and everyone interprets words from the past (including the Bible's). People who say they can are just scammers. Even historians often differ as to the meaning of words and events from the past. I'm sure the founders placed one freedom to carry (muzzle loaded weapons) armaments to superceded others (including children's ) right to live (not)!? More pure conservative BS!!!!

0

You can not shame those who have been bribed (Roberts, Thomas), nor those who are brainwashed (Kavenaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch) , nor those who pathologically hate progressives and social progress (Kavenaugh, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch). These 'people' are unfit for SCOTUS.

I think that we can if we keep heaping it on.

2

You’ll not get an argument from me.

3

It is not possible to shame shameless wretches.

4

True, but "conservative" means "stick to what one has; avoid anything new."
Then, also, one must consider the desire for power and influence. Why would a powerful and influential judge wish to concede?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:727952
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.