Justice Clarence Thomas prides himself on being an unwavering “originalist.”

[Spunkylama]

 

[Jredbaron96]

Originalism is an ideology promoted by those who both don't understand the role laws play in a society, and the nature of how laws are made.

 

[Craig234]

Originalism is an ideology promoted by those who both don't understand the role laws play in a society, and the nature of how laws are made.

Agendas are in search of attractive masks to hide them in, and Originalism is an ideology for justifying an agenda, to be used selectively when convenient. Not sure what the point of the OP is.

 

[Spunkylama]

Agendas are in search of attractive masks to hide them in, and Originalism is an ideology for justifying an agenda, to be used selectively when convenient. Not sure what the point of the OP is.

Why would be vote to overturn roe vs wade if he believes the above?

 

[Craig234]

Why would be vote to overturn roe vs wade if he believes the above?

Because he claims the 'originalist' view supports that, and Roe violated the Originalist interpretation.

 

[Greenbeard]

Originalism is an ideology promoted by those who both don't understand the role laws play in a society, and the nature of how laws are made.

The philosophy of judges who want to pretend they're priests.

 

[Spunkylama]

No, Really, the Right to an Abortion Is Supported by the Text and History of the Constitution

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it will betray the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of bodily autonomy.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thomas is an originalist idiot.

“The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”

- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Lisa]

Thomas is an originalist idiot.

“The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”

- Thomas Jefferson

According to originalist thinking, Clarence Thomas and Amy Comey Barrett would not be on the bench. Liars and hypocrites!

 

[Craig234]

There is a vagueness with the constitution that has no better 'correct' answer than Justices essentially making up opinions on large areas of rights - arguably most rights.

That comes down to the most important constitutional design disagreement, the whole concept of how to protect rights where some felt it should be done by saying the government only had certain powers, and others felt that in addition some rights needed to be listed - while the first group felt if you did that, you needed to say that other unlisted rights were just as important.

That's where the issue comes from, that these unlisted rights can be nothing, or almost anything can be said to be one.

And that's where this whole "it's not listed" argument from the right is disingenuous and fallacious. Does that mean that no unlisted right exists - directly contradicting the whole 'limited powers' and 9th and 10th amendments saying there ARE unlisted rights?

And this is where it comes down in part to how they 'feel' - how they feel the founding fathers might view issues they had no idea about like 'the pill', how they feel the constitution's spirit and unlisted rights cover or don't cover a right.

And any answer a Justice decides on can be defended, because it can't be anything other than a made-up view about the topic. And so while they will say a lot about why their view is correct, if they rule against Roe what it really comes down do is the desire for money by the people who got them put on the court to give anti-abortion voters what they want. Anti-abortion voter keeps voting R and R keeps taking the money for the rich.

 

[Individual]

No, Really, the Right to an Abortion Is Supported by the Text and History of the Constitution

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it will betray the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of bodily autonomy.

www.theatlantic.com

I agree with Justice Thomas on how the Constitution should be interpreted.
And on abortion, I would use both the 4th and the 14th amendments as Constitutional support of a Woman's Right to abortion nationally without need of Roe v Wade.
All our laws should be written clearly and concisely, leaving little need for interpretation and any reinterpretation should be the result of an amendment process.
There should be but ONE interpretation of our Constitution taught in schools, and ALL Judges/Justices should base their rulings on that ONE interpretation, leaving Congress/States to initiate an amendment process when a majority of the PEOPLE feel a change needs to be made. It should not matter if a Judge/Justice was appointed by a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative President when the courts are called upon to adjudicate an issue brought to Court.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

"Originalism" is bullshit.

 

[Individual]

Thomas is an originalist idiot.

“The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Federal law requires a Census be taken every 10 years, perhaps a law requiring the Constitution be rewritten every 19 years? Though life expectancy has increased since Jefferson, so maybe every 30-40 years would be better?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Federal law requires a Census be taken every 10 years, perhaps a law requiring the Constitution be rewritten every 19 years? Though life expectancy has increased since Jefferson, so maybe every 30-40 years would be better?

Jefferson’s point was that future generations should not be constrained by past conventions.

Our Constitution is a living document that should interpreted by contemporary standards.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The Constitution is not a ship in a glass bottle.

 

[Individual]

Jefferson’s point was that future generations should not be constrained by past conventions.

Our Constitution is a living document that should interpreted by contemporary standards.

Liberal or Conservative?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Liberal or Conservative?

It's obviously living.

The Constitution when it was written was never intended to provide rights and guarantees of liberty outside of a very selective group of people, nor did its amendments necessarily change that; the 14th Amendment was not written to given complete equality to African Americans, yet it has been used to that exact purpose. Despite occasional criticisms of the 14th Amendment and its usage in rulings, you won't find any prominent conservative or originalist who argues that because the Founding Father's (or the authors of the 14th Amendment) didn't see black people as equal therefore they shouldn't have equal rights.

Either the Constitution has already changed simply by virtue of our society changing, and its interpretation and coverage expanded naturally as our culture did, or it became irrelevant the day constitutional rights became expanded beyond the scope of who it was originally intended to cover.

 

[ataraxia]

Then we can restrict our understanding of the word “arms” in the 2A to mean “front loading muskets” only. There were no AR15s at the time.

 

[Somerville]

Then we can restrict our understanding of the word “arms” in the 2A to mean “front loading muskets” only. There were no AR15s at the time.

I say you are wrong when you claim "arms" meant "front-loading muskets" only -- you forgot swords, pikes, lances and axes.

 

[Torus34]

The following may pertain:

“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.” Lewis Carroll. Through The Looking Glass.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What an idiot, if Thomas was really an "unwavering originalist" he would be a slave and unable to vote.

 

[jnug]

Strict Originalist, two meanings, one or the other applies depending on who we are talking about:
- thoughtless cement headed jackass (likely in the case of Thomas)
- Unscrupulous pursuer of rationalizations to support and argument (Scalia for example)

 

[Individual]

It's obviously living.

The Constitution when it was written was never intended to provide rights and guarantees of liberty outside of a very selective group of people, nor did its amendments necessarily change that; the 14th Amendment was not written to given complete equality to African Americans, yet it has been used to that exact purpose. Despite occasional criticisms of the 14th Amendment and its usage in rulings, you won't find any prominent conservative or originalist who argues that because the Founding Father's (or the authors of the 14th Amendment) didn't see black people as equal therefore they shouldn't have equal rights.

Either the Constitution has already changed simply by virtue of our society changing, and its interpretation and coverage expanded naturally as our culture did, or it became irrelevant the day constitutional rights became expanded beyond the scope of who it was originally intended to cover.

"All persons"... doesn't differentiate between race, gender, or any other differences.
person
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.

 

[Jredbaron96]

"All persons"... doesn't differentiate between race, gender, or any other differences.
person
noun
a human being regarded as an individual.

The authors of the 14th Amendment did not all intend for it to grant blanket social equality for all people living in the United States.

 

[Individual]

The authors of the 14th Amendment did not all intend for it to grant blanket social equality for all people living in the United States.

The "..." indicates more words follow.