Blue-checked geniuses helpfully explain that Amy Coney Barrett's 'originalism' means that she's a misogynistic, racist homophobe

SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett describes herself as an originalist. Which we thought was just fine.

That is, until business consultant and writer Umair Haque stopped in to set us straight:

“Originalism” would mean, among other things, that women couldn’t vote, that black people wouldn’t be people, that religious and ethnic abuse and exploitation of minorities and say gay people would be perfectly acceptable. When ACB uses that word, think about all that.

— ❤️ (@umairh) October 13, 2020

And when Umair presents himself as someone who should be taken seriously, think about that tweet. Because holy crap, you guys.

https://t.co/IKfPP5QBZD pic.twitter.com/t9SnP644Xc

— Wesley White (@wes_s_white) October 13, 2020

pic.twitter.com/CKjkfsxWNn

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) October 13, 2020

This is not your area, clearly. https://t.co/TgmEIotUmI

— Shahid King Bolsen (@ShahidKBolsen) October 13, 2020

We’re starting to wonder what Umair’s “area” actually is.

Blue checks still lack even a kindergartner's level understanding of judicial philosophy. https://t.co/R6PmCvhiAq

— Chris Kieser (@ckieser13) October 13, 2020

you clearly have no understanding of what “originalism” means.

✍?nominated✍?for✍?the✍?List✍? https://t.co/QcTDxckbf0 pic.twitter.com/UxBGxN1DXT

— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) October 13, 2020

Recommended

Judge Rules DOGE ‘Blatantly Used’ Race and Sex in Mass Termination of Federal Grants to the NEH

Brett T.

Advertisement

This is not, in fact, what originalism means. Lol. https://t.co/3aAO0mK2oG

— Brad Polumbo ??⚽️ ?️‍? (@brad_polumbo) October 13, 2020

Tell that to these clowns:

Unless you're a fan of slavery, think women should have no rights at all, and that indigenous people are a different species that deserves to be eradicated, ”originalism” is an Orwellian doily wrapped around a morally bankrupt turd.

— Bradley Whitford (@BradleyWhitford) October 13, 2020

How does this position possibly square with the process of creating constitutional amendments, which are meant to improve upon what came before? Also, 3/5ths of a person was ratified into the Constitution. So, what does she make of that meaning, or of the fact that it was law? https://t.co/QTHDp7i0iu

— Anthony Rapp Black Lives Matter (@albinokid) October 13, 2020

And there are plenty more where that came from.

Utter nonsense. "Originalism" does not mean ignoring constitutional amendments. It means understanding the Constitution's words in their original context at the time of passage for ALL amendments, including 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and any that get ratified in the future. https://t.co/Zl2d1SAxW9

— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) October 13, 2020

I mean, if you ignore the amendments, sure.

You moron. https://t.co/XgraoGf7DX

— Not Brian France (@Not_BrianFrance) October 13, 2020

We’re shocked — shocked! — that progressive blue-checks with a considerable platform would use said platform to sow seeds of disinformation and fear.

This is 100% incorrect and flat out a lie. https://t.co/GSnyXqyn3J

— Sp??kysounds wants ACB on the Supreme Court (@sound_nobody) October 13, 2020

THIS is just straight up false and fearmongering. https://t.co/Ro2lc1TRYt

— Dylan (@DylCCole) October 13, 2020

This … is the Left.