Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.
Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.
|
Since Originalism was invented in the 1980s, a few hundred years after the Constitution, I’ll call it a conservative fad.
Here’s how it’s used:
What happens in “originalist” judicial decisions has nothing to do with history. Instead, “originalism” is used as a way to shut down opposing arguments. To sum it up, that method has six steps:
1. Find some old legal cases or other sources that can be quoted, even if sharply edited first, to favor a conservative policy outcome of a constitutional dispute.
2. Proclaim this policy outcome as the “original public meaning” of the constitutional provision at issue.
3. Exclude as much contrary evidence (including existing judicial precedent) as possible.
4. Announce that none of the remaining evidence disproves your side’s preferred policy outcome.
5. Enshrine your preferred policy outcome in constitutional doctrine.
6. (optional) If courtesy calls for it, apologize for the harshness of the result, but note that you bear no responsibility. Our Founders decided it long, long ago, and you are simply their humble scribe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode