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:

Sounds like we’re in for a series of compelling arguments.

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.

Buckle up, buckaroos. You’re in for a treat:

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.




Well, well, well … look at this:

Nice try, Jill. But too little, too late.



OMG: Check out this ’embarrassing’ reason Sen. Dianne Feinstein fears constitutional ‘originalists’