The SCOTUS confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett have brought record numbers of amateur constitutional scholars out of the woodwork, especially to point out the obvious problems with ACB’s originalist approach to the law. Doesn’t Amy Coney Barrett know that women couldn’t even vote when the Constitution was originally written, much less serve on the Supreme Court?
Well, we hope you don’t mind if we throw another gem on the pile. And this one’s from Dan Rather:
If you want to be an “originalist” in law, maybe you should go all the way. Cooking on a hearth. Leeches for medicine. An old mule for transportation. Or maybe you can recognize that the world changes.
— Dan Rather (@DanRather) October 14, 2020
Evidently Dan Rather doesn’t recognize that he’s an intellectually dishonest moron.
— Dodd (@Amuk3) October 15, 2020
Dan are you aware that the Constitution does not forbid the Congress to pass more laws
— Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) October 15, 2020
You’d think he’d acknowledge that, given that he was around when the Constitution was drafted.
It's troubling to think that millions of people once relied on this guy for information about American politics https://t.co/QUeJ5C03XZ
— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) October 15, 2020
If you want to be a "journalist", maybe you should go all the way. Not manufacturing fake memos to try and throw and election. Not lie about faking the memo. Or maybe you can recognize you're a discredited hack who is now viewed as less trustworthy than the Weekly World News.
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) October 15, 2020
We’ll leave you with this:
For those of you under the impression that Kenneth here knows the frequency: originalists don’t believe the Constitution should never change; they just realize it’s not judges but citizens through their representatives who should make those changes. Read!https://t.co/zbqsHGv4rj
— Christopher J. Scalia (@cjscalia) October 15, 2020