on airplanes, reveal the dishonesty inherent in the originalism idea. In fact, it appears that, much the way that many Republicans are dropping any pretense of civil decorum or anti-bigotry in order to appeal to radical elements of the base, many conservative judges are leaning into the bare-knuckled, results-oriented jurisprudence to take them in the direction that they want to go: backward.
Originalists argue that it’s not their fault that the drafters may have been slaveholders, or uniformly male, or white, or without any knowledge of contemporary technology or a more inclusive notion of humanity. Them’s the breaks; mere accidents of history. Or they argue that they are only interpreting the law as written. If you want to change the law, they say, that’s the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. But that, too, is a profoundly dishonest response.
With regard to bodily autonomy, women must be entitled to it, irrespective of whether the Constitution explicitly provides for it.
Mi cuerpo mi decisión, si al aborto
Or at least put the brakes on societal change and transformation. As to what is progress in these regards is doubtless open to lots of arguments.
This being said, what do the 'originalists' say was the reason the founders made 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' a qualifying precedent in the 2nd Amendment? It's rather obvious their intent was to insure the security of the State.
It's working. SMH
It's a conservative judicial fabrication designed so the Constitution can't breathe new meaning.
What is progress?
A pure republican tactic