We're not even trying anymore. https://t.co/FACQgdZUld
— Cosmo Feminism (@cosmofeminism) March 21, 2017
OK, this settles it: SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch simply cannot be confirmed. Why? Because he’s a constitutional originalist, and that’s something that the sharp legal minds at Cosmopolitan just cannot abide:
9 Reasons Constitutional Originalism Is Bullsh*t https://t.co/c9glcAtp8g pic.twitter.com/mDoDxjuOQh
— Cosmopolitan (@Cosmopolitan) March 21, 2017
Sounds like we’re in for a series of compelling arguments.
Whoa, the left is wandering off into some pretty uncharted territory here. https://t.co/FJ5zuqTbdg
— Federalist Musket?? (@Patriot_Musket) March 21, 2017
Jill Filipovic writes:
Part of the case for Gorsuch (or the case against him, depending on your view) is that he says he’s a constitutional originalist, a legal ideology most closely identified with Scalia, the judge whose seat he may fill. Constitutional originalism is the theory that judges should interpret the Constitution as its authors meant it when they wrote it — that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document as more progressive legal scholars claim, but a black-and-white document to be read according to the literal text and what the writers meant when they penned it. It’s a compelling vision, one that positions judges not as moral agents but simply neutral translators of the written word, seeking solely to carry out the law and not create it.
But it’s also a false one — a role that is both impossible and undercut by its own conceit, given that the writers of the Constitution arguably intended for it to be a living document. And yet Gorsuch remains a proponent. Here’s why his originalist theory is bullshit.
Recommended
Buckle up, buckaroos. You’re in for a treat:
https://twitter.com/wupton/status/844257018324156418
Cosmo you need to study the Constitution before writing. This argument is embarrassing and ignorant of precedent https://t.co/51vwfgaO2W pic.twitter.com/eJYhnhT3ck
— Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair ? (@senatorshoshana) March 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/GlomarResponder/status/844254894781616129
That said, I don’t think I’ve read a more embarrassing paragraph on Heller since I last logged onto Twitter.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 21, 2017
I stopped when she claimed handguns didn't exist in the 18th century. How embarrassing.
— Joshua Trujillo (@yeshuatrujillo) March 21, 2017
Speaking of bullshit, this article claims "handguns" weren't around in 1791. https://t.co/ZejOyc7P6T
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) March 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/BryanJacoutot/status/844259612484354049
.@JillFilipovic: Can you explain?
"Nor, of course, did handguns exist in the 18th century"https://t.co/9HNNiPNjD4https://t.co/aZ2BSPiXSw pic.twitter.com/h9dUXB8ri1— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) March 21, 2017
Indeed. Moreover, the word is “arms,” and contemporary definitions explicitly include handguns. https://t.co/jah73faMWu
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/BrianRKnight/status/844258622809038853
Indeed. Like “press” and “religion” and “speech” and “assembly” and “persons” and “effects” and “petition” and . . . https://t.co/UMMnkEJsiv
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 21, 2017
Oh, thanks for clearing that up Jill pic.twitter.com/7ygHGHzQSC
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/molratty/status/844256616635498496
We’re shocked — shocked! — that Filipovic and Cosmo are full of it. You know, because we’ve come to expect so much better from these ladies.
https://twitter.com/VixenRogue/status/844256181417738240
*pats Cosmo on the head* https://t.co/m2Gx3AApbB
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 21, 2017
https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/844263880280956930
how cute cosmo is taking on constitutional law now https://t.co/hrnNpwkKDO
— Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair ? (@senatorshoshana) March 21, 2017
oh wait no there it is. popup on cosmo constitutional law story pic.twitter.com/x8SVq1EYSE
— Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair ? (@senatorshoshana) March 21, 2017
GP I know my first stop for constitutional analysis is always Cosmo.
"15 Sure Fire Tricks to Get Into His Robes by RBG"
— The Gormogons (@Gormogons) March 21, 2017
followed by "Notorious RBG's 5 Favorite Sex Positions" https://t.co/Uz2PkgS5MD
— Nino (@baldingschemer) March 21, 2017
Brought to you by the peeps who teach you how to peg your mate..how to have a healthy 3some and why your vajayay stinks. https://t.co/kkb1Lgvfz8
— LaurieAnn ??♂️? (@mooshakins) March 21, 2017
Yeah, thanks for weighing in. pic.twitter.com/dTRqdrDIVR
— While Supplies Last (@corrcomm) March 21, 2017
Didn't you tell my girlfriend to stick a carrot in my ass https://t.co/hCwSaUIfZY
— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) March 21, 2017
Probably.
Stick to "Best Sex Ever" think pieces. https://t.co/psd0xgqe47
— David Edward ? (@_David_Edward) March 21, 2017
You should go back to writing about Rusty Trombones tbh. https://t.co/WZmABXfpwg
— Jason (@jasonelevation) March 21, 2017
***
Update:
Well, well, well … look at this:
Now @JillFilipovic's article at @Cosmopolitan has been amended.https://t.co/ye9ESfqcj7 pic.twitter.com/CPacY7BHg0
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) March 21, 2017
Nice try, Jill. But too little, too late.
***
Related:
OMG: Check out this ’embarrassing’ reason Sen. Dianne Feinstein fears constitutional ‘originalists’
Join the conversation as a VIP Member