You would have been very pleased with the Supreme Court of the 1920s and '30s then.

Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and even the most ardent "conservatives" today recognize the federal government as having general legislative and regulatory powers on stuff like minimum wage, worker conditions, and discrimination.

That's why it's fucking silly to say "This or that modern judge is a true originalist." (Or whatever buzzword you want). No they're fucking not; nobody is an "originalist" anymore; that word doesn't even mean anything. The fact of the matter is that a nation's thoughts and understandings change a lot in 200 years, and you're wasting your time by interpreting the Constitution in a way that 90% of the nation disagrees with.

Which is why "conservative" justices today are nowhere near as "conservative" as justices from long ago.

And you can easily flip the tables, where the true originalist position on things like... abortion... is actually the modern progressive position, not the "conservative" one. Nobody in fucking 1795 thought a fetus had rights. Abortion before quickening was not illegal. Your medical decisions over your own body in your own fucking home were not something the state gave a single shit about the day the Constitution was written.

But, funnily enough, "conservatives" don't know that.

You would have been very pleased with the Supreme Court of the 1920s and '30s then.

Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and even the most ardent "conservatives" today recognize the federal government as having general legislative and regulatory powers on stuff like minimum wage, worker conditions, and discrimination.

That's why it's fucking silly to say "This or that modern judge is a true originalist." (Or whatever buzzword you want). No they're fucking not; nobody is an "originalist" anymore; that word doesn't even mean anything. The fact of the matter is that a nation's thoughts and understandings change a lot in 200 years, and you're wasting your time by interpreting the Constitution in a way that 90% of the nation disagrees with.

Which is why "conservative" justices today are nowhere near as "conservative" justices from long ago.

And you can easily flip the tables, where the true originalist position on things like... abortion... is actually the modern progressive position, not the "conservative" one. Nobody in fucking 1795 thought a fetus had rights. Abortion before quickening was not illegal. Your medical decisions over your own body in your own fucking home were not something the state gave a single shit about the day the Constitution was written.

But, funnily enough, "conservatives" don't know that.

You would have been very pleased with the Supreme Court of the 1920s and '30s then.

Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago, and even the most ardent "conservatives" today recognize the federal government as having general legislative and regulatory powers on stuff like minimum wage, worker conditions, and discrimination.

That's why it's fucking silly to say "This or that modern judge is a true originalist." (Or whatever buzzword you want). No they're fucking not; nobody is an "originalist" anymore; that word doesn't even mean anything. The fact of the matter is that a nation's thoughts and understandings change a lot in 200 years, and you're wasting your time by interpreting the Constitution in a way that 90% of the nation disagrees with.

Which is why "conservative" justices today are nowhere near as "conservative" justices from long ago.