Why are Republicans heads are exploding this week? it’s because the now safely dead Antonin Scalia was such a pure originalist about the Constitution. An originalist like Scalia would tell them that a supposed precedent of the last 80 years doesn’t matter. What matters is what people originally understood
“[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court”
to mean. I sincerely doubt they thought it meant “do nothing until after the election”.
If we followed dead Scalia’s originalist process, we really shouldn’t have an Air Force, or seat belts, because the founding fathers missed that White Paper from Ben Franklin. Actually, the internal combustion engine was first developed in the 1890’s, so let’s forget cars, much less seatbelts, unless you want to put them on your buckboard…. and might as well forget any legislation pertaining to telegraph, telephone, smartphones, texts, social media, computers, intertubes, wifi, bluetooth, digital anything, etc. I suppose we should go back to the pigeons and the Pony Express to communicate over long distances….except that the Pony Express happened in the 1840’s so that’s out also. The doctrine of originalism so beloved by Nino and so many RWNJs just makes no fucking sense. None. As in zero fucking common sense. Waitaminute…what if positing a doctrine of originalism allows you to “interpret” the founding fathers’ intentions any fucking way you want? As in, “I believe, despite the fact that abortion is never mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights, that the founding fathers intended that particular medical procedure should be banned.” Or “Hmmm, the founders reference to ‘a well-regulated militia’ in the 2nd amendment really means that deranged gunnutz can get together in someone’s garage and plot ways to prevent overreach by the jackbooted feds by using assault weapons and .50 caliber armor-piercing shells, no problem.” I get it. Originalism allows those who espouse it to just make shit up and claim a constitutional basis for it. Just like Bible-beaters (or Koran-beaters or Torah-beaters) & religion. So will someone please assplain to me how comes none – like zero – of the andreachucktodds of the MSM have seen fit to point out the justice’s absolute lack of clothing in regard to this “judicial philosophy?” No? I thought not.
It still make me want to vomit when I remember that GW Bush was appointed president of the USA by Scalia. What bridge did Reagan find Scalia under, anyway?