SHARE

Congratulations to the new Miss Universe! Uh, I mean Judge Gorsuch, the nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. And better luck next time to the first runner up. Wait, I mean Judge Hardiman. According to CNN, the White House staged a bizarre production in which both federal judges appeared to be on their way to the nation’s capital to await The Reality Show Host in Chief’s breathless announcement of who the nominee would be. Turns out Judge Hardiman was only pretending to go to D.C., but never actually left Pennsylvania. What on earth was the purpose of this spectacle? To keep the suspense? To spike the ratings? What Trump does not seem to understand is that the presidency is not tracked by Nielsen. And that the composition of the Court is so much more important than who wins a beauty pageant.

What could this appointment mean for the Court, assuming Judge Gorsuch is confirmed? Not much. It will restore the composition of the Court to what it was before Justice Scalia died. Like the late justice, the new nominee interprets the constitution using a philosophy called “originalism.” Thus, I suspect that a Justice Gorsuch would rule in much the same way that Justice Scalia would have. Hence, no change for now.

Let me take a moment to talk about this so-called original intent approach to the constitution. The adherents of that approach would have you believe that it is the TRUE way to read our country’s foundational document. Not so. First, there is not only one way in which to interpret the constitution. Over the centuries, justices have used many approaches to determine what the document requires. But more importantly, it’s funny how the results of cases decided using originalism always seem to come out the “right” way. By that I mean the right wing way, not the correct way. That’s not a coincidence. Originalism is a creation of the 1980s with the express mission of beating back the jurisprudence of the Warren Court. For those of you too young to remember that era, the Warren Court announced itself with a bang by deciding Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and never looked back for the next decade and a half. It gave life to the due process clause, to the equal protection clause, and to the Bill of Rights (excluding the second amendment). In response, a few conservative law professors devised the new ideology, and it was greatly promoted by Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general. One of the early proponents of the theory was Robert Bork. You may remember that, back in 1987, his views were considered too extreme for him to be approved for the Supreme Court. Now, ho hum, this way of thinking is mainstream.

So, assume for the moment that Judge Gorsuch is confirmed. Citizens United remains the law of the land. So, too, does Hobby Lobby, especially considering he wrote the lower court opinion in the case. But look on the bright side: The marriage equality and abortion rights cases will probably also remain good law. What is scarier to me is if Trump gets another crack at appointing a new justice. Three members of the Court have reached an age when they might want to kick back and play with the grandkids: Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer. If any of them retire, you can kiss marriage equality and abortion rights goodbye. Those cases have all been decided by a margin of 5-4. Replacing any one of those justices will flip the balance to 4-5.

Trump has breezily said that the ship has sailed on overruling marriage equality. Meanwhile, he has also said he is looking for someone to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That shows he has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the law, if you were still wondering. Conservatives go berserk when you talk about the concept that underlies both lines of cases. The idea is that the due process clause gives us all a right to be able to make certain intimate decisions without having the government intrude. For example, whether to marry, whom to marry, whether to beget or bear a child, how to rear any children you have are all considered as within that zone of privacy. If the Court rules that a woman no longer has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, all the rest of those decisions are likely to be open to governmental interference as well.

Let’s hope that Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer remain in embarrassingly good health for the next four years.

Mary Brigid McManamon teaches law at Widener University. That was not her headline.

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Lefty Frizzell

    The job of the SC is to interpret the constitution, right? You can’t just arbitrarily stick “original intent” in front of your interpretation and pull an assertion from your ass that that makes it a better interpretation. Unless you’re a republican activist corporate christian right asshole judge anyway.

    • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

      see: Scalia, Antonin

    • Oblios_Cap

      Original intent – it’s still 1785.

    • Snopes Shop

      WRONG, their job is to interpret the BIBLE.

  • memzilla Ω

    Oh, the Rethuglicans want “originalism” all right, right up to the Dred Scott decision and black people being 3/5 of a citizen.

    • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

      and Loving and the birth control one and Roe and Hobby Lobby and Citizen United…

    • Shan

      But then they can’t give blastocysts full “personhood” rights because they don’t know what color they are yet.

      • Boscoe

        This consideration is rendered moot by conservative’s irrational Christionist obsession with seeing people punished for their “mistakes.”

        Force the birth now, oppress the child later.

        • Oblios_Cap

          Jesus said that’s the way to do things. Either him or that fucking Paul.

          • Boscoe

            Paul. Definitely Paul.

        • Shan

          That’s true. I sometimes forget the Sadism involved. They’d make them give birth anyway just in case it’s a white babby they can harvest.

        • Jeffery Campbell

          Win win!!

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Well, I’m not sure they still would be okay with the 3/5 thing. They would want 1/1 for determining population for representation–after all, “Libtards, you’ve been arguing for 150 years that the Blacks are real people equal to the White Race, so why would you complain about whole personhood for representation purposes?”

  • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

    Thanks for the input Prof M. I’m a law nerd (paralegal student).

    It’s my uninformed impression that “national security” gives jurists a lot of latitude when it comes to things like the muslim ban, torture, gitmo, surveillance, etc.
    With Bannon having Trump’s ear and being on the NSC, I’m concerned Trump and Co will exploit this loophole every chance they get, especially if they get another seat.
    Your thoughts?

    • Lefty Frizzell

      I think Hobby Lobby and Citizens United shows us that an activist right-leaning SC gives itself all the latitude to make any decision it fucking well wants to on any fucking subject.

      • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

        aye, and that’s kinda the point. In law, “national security” gives you even MOAR latitude, so yeah, i’m concerned literally ANY idea will get through.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        Don’t forget Shelby County, gutting the Voting Rights Act after its 2006 renewal passed the House 390-33 and the Senate 98-0, accompanied by linear miles of documentation. Unprecedented judicial activism, but if it’s meant to disenfranchise or damage “others,” Republicans and Trump fans are perfectly fine with it.

    • Spotts1701, Resistance Pilot

      Judges do grant a lot of deference to the executive in matters that are either entirely or largely within the established parameters of that branch of government. Hence the “sole organ” theory that gives a lot of leeway to the President in matters of foreign policy and international relations (except in matters of treaty), and decisions which have upheld the President’s rights with regard to removing executive appointments and executive functions.

      • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

        given trump’s temperament and history…your comment fucking terrifies me.

        • Spotts1701, Resistance Pilot

          Well, they have not gone as far as John Yoo wanted in adopting the Unitary Executive theory – which would grant the President exclusive power in all respects of executive action.

          • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

            haven’t read about that – but the fact htat bastard is a law prof know is very …grrrrrrrr.

          • cmd resistor

            Like Alberto Gonzalez being dean of a law school, and also, too, often brought on to talk about legal ethics….

          • AncienReggie

            Now that’s funny right there I don’t care who y’are.

          • puredog

            Fun fact from friend who graduated from Boalt Hall: Yoo’s classes met in ever-shifting locations. Only students actually enrolled in the classes would get emails telling them where that day’s class was to be held. Otherwise, it was expected (and probably correctly) that many unwashed and unhinged Berkeleyites would show up and be, er, disruptive.

          • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

            fucking coward

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      That’s how they try to justify giving “detained” muslims no rights whatsoever. (Letting them see a lawyer is a danger to the citizenry . . . go figure that one out.)

      • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

        handcuffing 5-year-olds is fucking ridiculous.
        I swear, a year ago, I would have called defense attorneys scumbag, technicality-exploiting bastards too…but the more I learn from school and you all smart folk, the more I”m ready to sign up for P. D. stuff.

        • Biel_ze_Bubba

          Be aware that you get paid in satisfaction dollars; Federal Reserve Notes, not so much. (It’s a bit like working for Putzder.)

  • Mr. Blobfish

    As if Donald Trump knows anything about anything.

    • Nounverb911

      Trump knows bankruptcy!

      • Oblios_Cap

        And how to bullshit.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        He knows the laws of legal consent in every state and 16 foreign countries.

    • Vagenda and Pee-ara

      He knows how to get angry idiots to vote for him.

      • Nounverb911

        Bannon did that.

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        Anybody willing to lie, constantly, in public, and with complete disregard for how blatant it is to non-idiots, could pull that off.

  • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

    The main problem is that originalism removes the entire point of a Supreme Court, just like how mandatory minimums remove the need for a judge. If it were balls and strikes, as our Chief Justice put it in an absurdly reductionist way, it wouldn’t have made it to the Supreme Court at all. But to these guys, all you need to do is look up the specific reasons for why they made the law, at the time, by reaching into their fucking heads I guess, and hey presto! You’ve got your ruling.

    Unless you’re talking about the 2nd Amendment, because if you applied originalism to that then all you’d be entitled to is a smoothbore musket and a bayonet. That one always gets glossed over, somehow.

    • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

      it may not be relevant, but I’d like to point out that both Muslims and Jews (ETA: Catholics too with bishops and the pope) have councils of learned elders that interpret their sacred texts to adapt to modern times. (Is using a cell phone violating the sabbath?)

      Point being, originalism is bullshit.

      As I understand it, the founders were adamant about making the constitution, bill of rights flexible enough to adapt to damn near anything. THat was the “genius of it” that so many R’s keep referring to.

      • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

        It’s also the *entire point of precedence*, which is what our legal system is built on. The idea of precedence and referencing prior case law is looking at prior reasoning and then adapting and adding to them due to the circumstances of the present situation. Not forcing new laws or amendments to be written every time some new, not specifically foreseen situation arises.

        • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

          yep, I loved the way my Intro to Law professor explained it. Made a ton of sense…

      • Paul

        If it was supposed to be carved in stone and immutable, why did they allow amendments?

        This bullshit construct (originalism) is a result of the vast right wing conspiracy that got cranked up after the “Powell Memo.” It is a patently absurd and ahistorical justification for making the corporate overlords even more powerful and screwing over everyone else.

    • Boscoe

      Clearly the Founding Fathers were pro-fracking because you can’t find a single example of them saying they were against it. Can I be a judge naow?

      • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

        I’m pretty sure you’d be a shoo-in in North Dakota!

        • HolidayinCambodia

          There was no State of North Dakota for 100 years after 1789. Could they apply original intent as of the date of North Dakota’s admission to the Union? That would be November 2, 1889.

          That would get them repeaters and rudimentary machine guns and all the other horrors that came out of the Civil War.

          • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

            Fraid not, Constitution is backdated and applied to all states, and according to originalism the interpretation to be applied is as if we were all wearing frock coats and powdered wigs. Unless the result isn’t to a conservative’s liking, in which case, fuck that.

          • HolidayinCambodia

            Darn!

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        Fortunately they were totally opposed to the use of infrared cameras to look at your house, to see if you might have grow lights burning all night long. (Real case, Scalia opining that not all wavelengths are constitutional for surveillance.)

        • HolidayinCambodia

          But he also twisted into pretzels on his “state’s rights” mantra when he ruled in favor of the feds and against California in the medical marijuana case (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005), which, unfortunately, is still good law.

    • sw19bender

      … and it would be regulated.

    • artem1s

      feature not a bug. that’s why the GOP loves it so much.

    • Michael Smith

      Yeah and states would be allowed to outlaw guns, unless the right to bear arms is a fundamental right extended to the states via the 14th Amendment – which the Court has never established.

    • Memphis Viking

      I have yet to see one person show me where the Second Amendment says anything about muskets, despite one liberal after another bringing it up.

      • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

        Because it’s what the founders would have conceived of as an arm. Make sense?

      • Bad Tom

        Don’t see anything in there about machine guns, either. Nor bazookas, tanks, fighter jets, or tactical nukes. Not even such unwieldy weapons as a Mark III Implosion bomb.

        POP QUIZ: Is a Mark III Implosion bomb safe if you accidentally drop it?

  • Idiokraticdrumpfenjugend
  • Oblios_Cap

    I’ve never read such jiggery-pokery in my life! It makes me want to argle-bargle my pure applesauce.

  • Nounverb911

    “According to CNN, the White House”
    Wait! CNN’s still allowed to report on the White House? I thought trump banned them from ever speaking about him again.

    • Shan

      CNN banned for attempting truthiness. Who would have ever thought it?

    • cmd resistor

      I think what they did was say they weren’t going to send their minions to be on CNN for a while. Darn.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    Scalia was a bullshitting rationalizer, not a “respected jurist”. In case after case, he’d just pick the conservative decision, then work backwards to the “original” interpretation that backed it up. He won’t be remembered for long.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      LOL. You want an incendiary piece? Have her write about Scalia.

      • cmd resistor

        The thought did cross my mind she might have some surprising stuff to say if asked and allowed to answer.

    • cmd resistor

      Ugh, did anyone see Trump sucking up to Scalia’s widow at the Reality Show last night?

    • Blackest Noobs

      and he died like a fucking punk.

      • CB

        I kept waiting for that POS traitor to choke on a sausage, and surprise! That’s exactly what he did.

        Originalism is completely ridiculous, but worse than that, Scalia didn’t even adhere to it when it came to the 2nd amendment, as was pointed out below.

        Gorsuch has argued that Roe v. Wade is a poor decision, and I’m inclined to agree!

        There’s no right to privacy in the constitution. The right being violated by abortion bans is the right to be free of involuntary servitude, the 13th amendment.

        We don’t enslave Women to bear children against their will. That’s un-American.

  • HolidayinCambodia

    What the professor implied, but did not explicitly note, is that Anthony Kennedy is a reliable supporter of Roe in one form or another (notwithstanding Gonzales v. Carhart, the partial birth abortion case), and he voted in the majority in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

    So, Griswold to Loving to Roe to Hellerstedt to Obergefell to Hellerstedt are still safe so long as Kennedy is on the court.

    You are welcome Wonketeers, and you are welcome, honey. (Don’t forget to create a new Disqus account for commenting here, if you want to comment here on your own pieces.)

    • Suttree

      Some of us picked up on that. We need to keep your better half around for some reasoned explanations. She makes me feel a bit calmer. Not good mind you, but less like the sky is falling.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        See, this probably would have been in the piece if she’d run it past me first, or at least, we would have talked about it. Short deadline and other things to do got in the way.

        But don’t expect dick jokes. She nixed that last night.

        • Suttree

          Dammit!

  • Cousin Itt de La Résistance

    The Original Recipe is not what it used to be. Am I right, or am I right on this, people?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f43339a07d8ef458520f56fd395cf1e659e60300d2825aa6481d697f53c1b77e.jpg

    • Shan

      OMG and I thought fried chicken already triggered me!!!

    • Sardonicuss

      My “Chicken Bone of Destiny” prayer has Karmic undertones.

      • Cousin Itt de La Résistance

        Hey sailor, wanna make a wish?

        • Sardonicuss

          I wish KFC would put free pretzels in every White House order. Redundancy.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      At least that’s the right Colonel Sanders. The new one just makes me change the channel.

      • Good_Gawd_Yall

        Boy, me too. I swear sometimes I think rivals make each other’s ads. See also: Sonic, Lincoln, Charmin.

        • HolidayinCambodia

          A recent Taco Bell ad had other Taco Bell customers looking at their Taco Bell-trademarked food with regret as they watched another customer eat some new Taco Bell thing. Who thought up that commercial? Did they think that denigrating their entire menu except for one new item would bring in new customers? SMH.

    • Suttree

      Popeye’s Organization or GTFO!

  • Vagenda and Pee-ara

    Why the fuck do journalists just sit there holding microphones when Ted Cruz says “Democrats get quiet when we bring up voter fraud?”

    WRONG, asshole, I WANT your stupid president to investigate all that non-existent voter fraud. Hint: you’ll get the same results you got when he investigated Obama’s birth certificate. There’s no “there” there, asshole.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Except that he didn’t investigate that. There’s never been any evidence that he did.

    • Suttree

      A reporter with some balls would be asking about voter suppression every time they bring up the fraud canard.

      • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

        been a week since he promised to he was supposed to issue EO to investigate…
        #JustSayin’

      • Vagenda and Pee-ara

        And also asking Teddy when he plans on starting the investigation that we’ve all been clamoring for.

    • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

      He does have a point, tho not the one he thinks he’s making. The GOP’s voter fraud bullshit is a direct attack on any Democrat getting elected ever again, from local to presidential level. Why aren’t we fighting this tooth and nail? Why isn’t this a way bigger deal?

      • Good_Gawd_Yall

        So many other squirrels?

      • Vagenda and Pee-ara

        We should declare the election invalid, since the WINNER is claiming there was rampant voter fraud. Let’s have a do over.

    • Rags

      Two weeks ago I posted a petition to investigate voter fraud at Whitehouse.gov and validated it appropriately. It still returns a 404 when I try the link I was sent. Not surprised,of course.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        I don’t think that petition page has much of a lifespan left. I’m surprised it’s still up.

  • laughingnome

    What about Starry de Sices?

    • HolidayinCambodia

      That only matters if they want it to. By the way, that’s not an answer that you ought to give an her exam, unless you don’t want any points for that issue.

    • The Librarian

      Breathing her last?

    • Unpresidented_in_Seattle

      Think we just found out what MAGA means. The evil Warren court made some decisions that need to be re-litigated.

  • Vecchioivan

    Score another one for the Federalist Society.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Fuckers. They don’t even understand that “Federalist” means that you are in favor of a strong federal government–or it used to. It’s like Newspeak.

  • Sardonicuss

    Hey. Things are kind of hazy but. “The Pelican Brief” was just a movie right?

    • Nounverb911

      So far. (Fingers crossed)

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Was that the one where he met his brother at the Floribama? Because we’ve been there.

      • Suttree

        I don’t think I ever watched the whole movie, but I know the bar from the movie. It was right by Jackson Square in the French Quarter.

        • HolidayinCambodia

          I may be thinking of his first or second book, the one with the law firm and the absurdly meaningless plot of hiding money in the Caymans or something like that. I don’t remember if I ever saw the movie for that one.

          • Suttree

            I’m not sure. They all kind of run together for me.

  • Friedrich

    Right now, right here, we have to ask women to come forward and out these Fascists. Where are the mistresses who will show what hypocrites these Republicans are? Gorsuch, Orrin Hatch, Pence, etc. Come on ladies, it’s okay to come out of the shadows. There’s only one way to defeat these bastards, and we all have to stand together.

    • Shan

      I don’t even think that’ll work any more.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      One person we KNOW doesn’t have a mistress is Bannon, because he’s never had enough money to make up for the unsavoriness of the job–unlike Trump.

    • Dr. Rrrrrobotnik

      More than half of white women voted *for* Trump, I think we know where they stand on the issue of what side of their bread gets buttered.

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        More than half of white women didn’t vote at all. They’re the ones who need to get their asses in gear.

        • Kateaux

          And yet, there really were *some* white women who voted for Hillary…

          • HolidayinCambodia

            “FAKE facts! 110% of women who voted, voted for Trump! FACT!”

    • Spurning Beer

      Sister wives?

      • AncienReggie

        Sinister wives.

    • cmd resistor

      They thrive in spite of it. Remember that guy in TN (Desjarlais?) who got elected as a tea party evangelical pro life guy? When it was discovered that not only did he have a mistress while married but had made her get an abortion, he was re-elected for another term.

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      Pfft. They’re all liars – all twenty-three (or forty-three) of them. Just ask Il Douche.

    • NastyBossetti

      If any did come forward, what would happen is that no one would believe them. They’d be accused lying to gain some advantage for themselves. And they’d be called sluts, if anyone did believe them, which means no one should listen to them. And the “respectable” men they maligned would carry on as they have been.

  • Suttree

    What Trump does not seem to understand is that the presidency is not tracked by Nielsen.

    I found this little doozy on Turnip and his compulsion about ratings. H/T to LGM
    http://www.vulture.com/2017/01/donald-trumps-tv-rating-obsession-a-history.html

  • MynameisBlarney

    Meanwhilst, at Teh Lesion of Dumb…

    https://media4.giphy.com/media/93ZPzlHGZI8CY/200.gif#3

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141686074

    Corrupt GOP can’t win while playing by the rules, so….they suspend them.

    • DahBoner

      Cheating, lying and stealing is an Ethos

      • MynameisBlarney

        A shitty Ethos, but an Ethos nonetheless.

  • Nounverb911

    OT
    Hey good news, trump remembered to mention Blacks when he welcomed us to black History Month.

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/826824503233740800

    • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

      wow! There’s black people in that photo!

      • sw19bender

        He bussed them in.

        • Biel_ze_Bubba

          And immediately back out.

          • cmd resistor

            Straight to the inner city.

      • cmd resistor

        Probably you will never see that many black people together in the White House for a long time.

        • Suttree

          Once a year for 20 minutes. Maybe.

          • cmd resistor

            Assuming we don’t just do away with Black History Month.

          • Good_Gawd_Yall

            One of the favored targets of the kind of people who voted for him, so I’d say it may be on its way out.

        • HolidayinCambodia

          Unless we see a picture of the household staff, including the kitchen and cleaning people.

      • C4TWOMAN

        Proof racism no longer exists!

      • HolidayinCambodia

        The government employees had been threatened with firing if they did not attend, and the non-government people were threatened with revocation of tax-exempt status, or serial tax audits if they did not attend.

        See how easy it is to get The Blacks to the table? I bet he asked the caterer to make “Negro Breakfast,” or “Colored People Food.”

        • TX Dept. of Space Tacos

          suddenly chicken and waffles seems likely…(and no, as a texan, I think htat’s hideous).

    • laughingnome

      Mike Pence is Black?

      • sw19bender

        Only on the inside.

        • Oblios_Cap

          I thought he was pink on the inside.

          • laughingnome

            Put him back in and turn up the oven.

          • If Pence was Jewish, I’m sure Steve Bannon would agree with that.

    • Cousin Itt de La Résistance

      Trump said during a listening session that he was “very proud” of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which opened before he took office, for providing a place where people can learn about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and “so many other things.”

      “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice,” Trump said, perhaps unable to articulate Douglass’ historically recognized role as an abolitionist leader and the first black citizen to hold a high rank in the U.S. government.

      He went on to name Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks as examples of “black Americans who made America what it is today.”

      “A big impact,” Trump said. “I’m proud to honor this heritage. I will be honoring it more and more.”

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a089d7310d2f9c5e37b52970d23e4ec7e2575ae7474da3ae5b118cd2412adb9.gif

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-black-history-month-frederick-douglass-did-an-amazing-job

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        “I will be honoring it more and more.” MLK day, 2018, for starters.

      • NotDarkYet

        “… an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more…”

        This is the shit my students write when they didn’t read the book/assignment.

        • puredog

          All the upfists.

    • Good_Gawd_Yall

      The two of them in the same room? Quick, take off and nuke it from space! It’s the only way to be sure. (with votes)

      • puredog

        And voila! President Ryan! (golf clap)

  • Trent Gahan

    Well, at least Fox is rebooting “24” in time to give this new justice, like Scalia before him, all the originalist material needed justify a President using Federal power to bomb, detain, black site, and torture opposition because there might be a bomb that might go off near white people before the next commercial break.

  • goonemeritus

    This is what we get for not packing the court when we had the chance.

    • sw19bender

      Lets hope the Dems learn next time when it’s their turn in power.

      Spoiler: they will not

      • C4TWOMAN

        They’ve got a really mild version of what the Republicans have right now: the belief if they stay invested, they’ll get something. This is the seed of truth behind the “both side are the same” libertarian/green rhetoric: career politicians on both sides are invested in the system as it is because they benefit from it.

        There are very slow to see the system in crumbling underneath them. I get Republicans holding onto hope. This was supposed to be Christmas for them and Trump ruined it! But I have no clue what’s holding the Democrats back…

        • proudgrampa

          “There are very slow to see the system in crumbling underneath them.”

          The prognosis is not good.

        • Reminds me of when the Roman Empire was crumbling. The Roman Senate was muttering about the appropriateness of paying a foreign barbarian and moving imaginary legions around on the map to defend them as the Vandals approached the gates. Democrats are in the Hitler bunker and think they’re on Bunker Hill.

          • C4TWOMAN

            And the Roman’s didn’t even have the Internets to blame. This has to be a basic human stress problem: minimising and distracting to avoid thinking of an overwhelming situation. <——– posting on Wonketee not getting shit done

      • ViveLaRésistance

        Let’s hope there is a next time.

        • Good_Gawd_Yall

          My thought exactly.

    • pstockholm

      That Roosevelt was a disappointment.

  • Oblios_Cap

    But, but, but… He looks so darned judge-like. Isn’t that the only criteria that matters?

  • Lance Thrustwell

    There’s a reason that ‘originalists’ are almost uniformly religious people; they believe that the Constitution is of divine origin. That’s why they are obsessed with the magical inspiration of the Founding Fathers, and see any changes or adaptations as leading away from a kind of holy purity.

    They seem to conveniently overlook that the Constitution was made to be amended as time goes on. Seems to fly in the face of any presumption of perfection, at least to me.

    • C4TWOMAN

      I bet they get really agitated when you point out the founders were deists.

      • Seriously?

        Nah, they just get Limbaugh to write a kids’ “history” book and point to it as proof that 200 years of historical study was a liberal conspiracy.

    • Suttree

      Depending on how you look at it, it is surprising that they don’t like Mormonism more. I guess they didn’t want anyone else to muscle into the making shit up from whole cloth game.

      • DahBoner

        Mormonism is kinda a Bible amendment with golden plates!

    • Rags

      Kuz it’s just like the Bible,amen!

      • Kateaux

        Specifically, I would guess, the King James Version.

        • Seriously?

          And with the pages of the book of Matthew still stuck together after never being opened.

    • AncienReggie

      Not sure I agree with your analysis. NOTHING in the Constitution — nor, for that matter, in the Bible — forbids or even contemplates the regulation of abortion. This among other things leads me to believe that the ‘originalists’ base their opinions entirely upon shared hallucinations.

    • pstockholm

      I think as a non-lawyer, the thing that gets me even more than the “it is not supposed to change” nonsense, is the obvious logical failure implied by the fact of different justices having different interpretations of the original intent. In other words, even if there were an original intent, there would be (and presumably have been) different perceptions or interpretations of what that intent was.
      Which makes a nonsense of the whole idea of using intent as an special kind of argument. You could claim your interpretation of intent was better, but then you are really back to claiming your quality of reasoning and interpretation of law is better in the here and now.
      That and the fact, correct me if I’m wrong, that intent is always weighed by all judges at all levels in applying all laws.
      But I’m not a lawyer and just as well.

      • Historicat

        Or you could just look over the wrangling and deal-making involved in the creation of the Constitution to begin with. The whole thing was a compromise by a multiple people from multiple states with multiple viewpoints and objectives. “Original intent” implies a monolithic sense of purpose where there was none.

    • Paul

      Precisely. I made that same point before I saw your cogent post. Those were turbulent times and all sorts of new shit was popping up that hadn’t been seen before and to think that these brilliant brains figured they’d “seen it all” is flat out fucking goofy.

  • gene108

    And just remember, if any right-winger brings up Robert Bork, remind him/her that Bork GOT AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE BEFORE THE FULL SENATE AND THE SENATE VOTED NOT TO CONFIRM.

    No procedural tricks. No letting the nomination languish. Bork got his day before the Senate and was found wanting.

    It is not the same thing that happened to Garland.

    • cmd resistor

      Except alternative history.

    • Lance Thrustwell

      And and and – don’t let ’em tell you that Obama and the Dems ‘did the same thing’ with Alito. First, that was an individual filibuster attempt , not a blanket refusal to consider all nominees. Second, it was symbolic and they knew it.

      • gene108

        Whatever happened to that Alito guy? Probably wasted a year of his life like Garland. /sarcasm

      • AncienReggie

        Third, Alito really does seriously suck.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Not only that, Bork was the Guy Who DIdn’t Resign when his two superiors did. He showed he was loyal to the second (third?) most corrupt Republican administration in the last 100 years. He was promised a Supreme Court seat for doing the dirty work; it just took 15 years for the opportunity to present itself.

      Bork deserved to get rejected because of his role in Watergate, completely aside from his toxic legal views.

  • I like that we have an awesome law-splainer here at teh wonkets now.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      She loves this comment, I have on good authority.

  • ViveLaRésistance
    • proudgrampa

      Jeez.

      Definitely from the same gene pool, eh?

      • SqueakyRat

        The shallow end, at that.

    • Blackest Noobs

      this is why white people will eventually lose in the end; not enough variety in the gene pool, pretty soon they’ll all be one mind, one person.

    • Markuserektus

      Gotta have that teevee look…

  • Nounverb911

    OT
    Al Franken and John Cornyn are screaming at each other this morning!

    https://twitter.com/cspan/status/826828249439338496

    • Lance Thrustwell

      Thank goodness for Al. About 10 more like him please.

    • laughingnome

      Franken should have brought his cane.

      • cheetojeebus

        ISWYDT

    • HolidayinCambodia

      I think Franken blew it when he named the 1980’s the “Al Franken Decade.” He should have named the 20-teens. He could have done that back in 1980, too, since he was on TV, and we weren’t.

    • Senator Box Turtle! He’s still around! SNORK.

    • Opiwan

      Every Democrat needs to do this. Stop being nice. The Republicans can give a shit about being nice until someone’s fee fees get hurt, and then they’re all Miss Manners. Take what they’re dealing, spin it around, and shove it right back up their fucking asses. You don’t negotiate with terrorists, and similarly nobody should try to reason with nihilists. Republicans are borderline nihilists.

      RESIST

      • Mike Rhodes

        When they go low, kick them in the teeth.

      • pstockholm

        Exactly.

      • mfp

        not borderline

    • natoslug

      John Cornyn is a festering asshole. That is all.

    • pstockholm

      Franken 2020? Or maybe Gillibrand-Franken.

  • Msgr_MΩment

    Once more, Busey is left without a rose.
    Will no one think of the children?

  • Adam Field

    I’m pretty happy, actually. I knew he’d pick a rightwing crazy who wants to do all sorts of abhorrent things, but based on some of his other picks, I was sort of expecting him to pick someone who a. wasn’t a lawyer, b. had no idea how laws work, and c. had already decided that the supreme court was unnecessary and the government would be so much better if we just destroyed it. So I’m glad to see that, while he is certainly conservative, he’s at least an actual legal expert who believes in the Constitution, if anything, just a little *too* much, which will come in handy plenty once Trump starts trying to dismantle it.

    Rather sad that my standards for happiness have stooped that low, but, well, they really have.

    • Lance Thrustwell

      Agreed, it could be worse. But if the Dems can successfully filibuster for the next 4 years – I know that’s a big “if” – then maybe we don’t have to swallow even this nicely toasted shit sandwich.

      • Blackest Noobs

        they’ll filibuster but no where near the level Republicans used it.
        and they should filibuster it but more importantly work on winning all 435 seats in the House, or a majority will work too…same with the 33 Senate seats….2018! 2018! 2018!

      • HolidayinCambodia

        If they try that, the Republicans will just change the rule, which I think they can do by a simple majority. Rules do not mean anything to Republicans.

        • cmd resistor

          Unless they happen to assist them in their nefarious scheme of the moment. Or unless they just make them up, like the, if Scalia dies we get to hold our breath until circumstances allow us to replace him with a clone.

        • puredog

          But McTurtle is on record as trying to protect the filibuster against Il Douche. I don’t know how deep his commitment is to this proposition, and I am disinclined to rely on him for anything except skullfuckery. But the whole question is whether the filibuster against Supreme Court nominees can survive. If not, we’d probably be better off knowing this sooner than later.

    • ViveLaRésistance

      There was that one time when Howard Stern asked Trump if he would appoint him to SCOTUS and Trump coyly didn’t rule it out. So there’s that, I guess.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Hardiman is a friend of Trump’s sister, so he probably will get the next one.

      • SqueakyRat

        If she doesn’t get it herself.

    • SnarkON

      When you recall that this is a stolen SCOTUS seat, you should not be happy about anyone except Merrick Garland.

    • puredog

      I’m sort of with you. While I would dearly love to see the Dems block ANYONE who wasn’t — oh, I dunno, I can compromise, somewhere between Garland and Gorsuck — I just don’t see how they can do it. Assuming for the sake of argument that they cannot (and I am not convinced that putting all our eggs in the basket of Yertle McTurtle as defender of the filibuster is a real smrt plan), one could do worse than Gorsuck. I mean look at Pryor. What a shitstain that guy is. Not saying “capitulate” yet, just trying to map it all out.

  • DahBoner

    Don’t worry about having to revert to black powder muskets, the 2nd Amendment is magically protected from this wacky “Originalism” philosophy…
    https://media3.giphy.com/media/VWvI6Z8uk5MCQ/200_d.gif#11
    Cryin’ and Shootin’

    • Garbageman

      Yep, they love the 2nd . . . they just don’t seem to like any of the others . . . smh . . .

      • HolidayinCambodia

        Except when they want them to apply to them, or, in the case of the First, when they want to use it as a cudgel to force other people to live by their viewpoint.

    • Stulexington

      Of course by well regulated militia our founding fathers meant everyone can buy as many up to date guns as they want for their own personal use. Don’t be silly.

      • DahBoner

        Yes, I hear people refer to me as an individual as a Militia all the time.

        Like today at the DMV, now serving Militia #325

    • Memphis Viking

      Can you quote for us the original text of the Second Amendment that says “black powder muskets”? Or would you prefer to admit you are clueless.

      • SnarkON

        Can you quote for us the text of the Wonkette Rules for Commenting Radicals in which it says, “Banhammer”?

        • Memphis Viking

          No, I can’t, but I bet it has something to do with banning people who disagree, because silencing the opposition is what left-wingers do.

          • Bad Tom

            It’s more to do with banning people who are obnoxious noxious noxiums.

          • SnarkON

            Actually it’s what the fascist you elected to the White House does.

          • Memphis Viking

            I always laugh when Democrats who want total government control over everything call Republicans fascists. But I digress.

            Liberals are the ones who try to shut up the opposition. I know you don’t think so, because you’re a liberal, and liberals are really bad at self awareness. But if you want an example, look at what’s happening in Berkeley in response to simply the idea of a conservative speaking. And for the record, I didn’t vote for Trump.

          • SnarkON

            What’s happening in Berkeley is a lot of peaceful students demonstrating — against a vile racist and Internet troll who has no more business speaking at this liberal university as a pro-choice ganja activist would speaking at a Baptist megachurch — and a few outliers doing some stupid, destructive shit that I guarantee no reasonable liberal approves of. You seem like a somewhat intelligent person. You have a good vocabulary and a decent grasp of grammar. Since you’ve bothered to come to Wonkette and spend a ton of time here, maybe you can lay down your hate and rhetoric for a while to consider that the radical extremist leftist fringe is just that: Radical, and a fringe. Liberals as a whole are actually pretty nice, normal, reponsible people who simply want everyone in this country to be able to coexist in relative peace, without being nasty to one another. We want to make sure the Earth doesn’t melt. We want consenting adults to be able to marry whomever they want without being attacked. We want women who for whatever reason aren’t ready for the lifetime commitment of mothering another human being to have the option of not doing that. This is the last time I am going to engage with you on this level. If you decide to retort with some more nasty attacks, then obviously I’ve failed. But hopefully maybe you’ll get a glimmer of understanding.

          • Memphis Viking

            Ah, the person who wrote “SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU FORCED-BIRTH MOTHERFUCKER” lecturing on nasty attacks. That’s rich.

            But seriously, there must be a LOT of unreasonable liberals because there’s been a whole lot of this kind of thing going on since November.

          • SnarkON

            OK, over and out. You’re hopeless.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        Memphis, could you tell us why Scalia ignored 48% of the words in the Second Amendment in Heller? That would be the FIRST 13 words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
        State, …”

      • Cool_North

        Can you explain the express mention of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and what it means in your own words, so that we can correct you? Also where in the second amendment is any mention of assault rifles, semiautomatics and the kind and how come then that the 2nd applies to them? On another note, did you find trolling to be everything you hoped it would be?

        • Memphis Viking

          The militia clause was included as a reason for the right to keep and bear arms, not as a limitation on it. Leftists believe that the Second Amendment only gives the militia the right to keep and bear arms, and that the militia is formed by the government, but if you knew the first thing about the Framers you would know that the government cannot have rights, only people have rights. Government only has powers, and only the powers specifically granted by the people.

          The next part of your comment is just ridiculous. The Second Amendment says “arms”, which means weapons in general. It does not say “muskets”, or “guns that have already been invented”. I bet you think the government should regulate speech on the internet too, since they didn’t mention it in the First Amendment.

          • Cool_North

            So your gun obsession is just paid homage to the “Framers” you know from inside your head, and a game of Constitution Twister served with yuuuge hubris.

          • Memphis Viking

            Funny coming from someone who invents the parts of the Constitution they want to follow.

          • Cool_North

            Invent? Think again. Just because your position is precarious without serious acrobatic moves and you don’t like it, it doesn’t mean the other point of view is bogus. Reality doesn’t bend to your whim as a rule. The point is, there is no absolute interpretation like you make it sound, nor do you or your brethren in gun worship know what every single author of it thought or was about unless you see dead people. Even then, it is a ultimately a great but fallible document, that needs to be updated periodically because SOCIETY EVOLVES and at greater speed than ever, despite your lot wanting to stay in 1787 for ever (or rather 1791, when it was added to the actual Constitution).

          • Memphis Viking

            “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” There is no interpretation necessary. It is plain English. The fact that you consider reading and understanding English “serious acrobatic moves” is your problem, not mine.

            As far as reality bending to whim, you’re the one that thinks the same words mean something different because ‘society evolves’. If you think it should be updated, then start a movement to amend it. That’s the only legal way to update the Constitution. Because ‘update’ doesn’t mean ‘pretend it means something different’.

          • Cool_North

            Only if you omit the words before and only then. I shouldn’t have even said acrobatic, but plain negative hallucination. Your own precious amendment is a CHANGE to the original Constitution. Jesus!

          • Memphis Viking

            If you understood how to read English, you would understand that the first clause in the Second Amendment in no way limits the second, but if that’s your problem I can’t help you.

            And seriously, how is it so many liberals don’t understand that amendments are part of the Constitution? No one who subscribes to originalism says “ignore the amendments”. That’s just another liberal straw man.

      • DahBoner

        It’s called “history” 😀

  • Bitter Scribe

    Yeah, Bush v. Gore was a real “originalist” decision, in which Scalia discovered the part of the Constitution that says recounts shouldn’t happen if they would possibly go against the Republican.

    • Memphis Viking

      Can you quote that from the ruling?

      • artem1s

        O’Connor actually ruled that it would take too long to recount the vote, so meh.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        When you respond to the posts and questions posed to you so far (it’s 2:21 ET), then perhaps we’ll give you the benefit of doing the research that you could do yourself if you had access to the Internet.

        • Memphis Viking

          I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were the hall monitor. But I’m flattered that you pay so much attention to little ole me.

          • HolidayinCambodia

            I’m hall monitor for this blogger’s posts, because she’s my wife, and a good husband stands up for his wife.

          • SnarkON

            God I wish my husband would stand up for me. That’s so nice.

  • Garbageman

    In an interesting side note, Ted Cruz called the nomination a ‘home run’ . . .

    In case anyone needs reminding, Cruz was the Republican primary opponent called ‘Lyin’ Ted’ by Trump, who also intimated that Cruz’s father might have been involved in the JFK assassination (!) . . . BTW, Cruz also says the ‘nuclear option’ is on the table if Democrats filibuster the vote . . . what a shitweasel . . .

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee-ted-cruz-don-lemon-cnntv/

    • OrdinaryJoe

      Shitweasel Libel

      • Garbageman

        It’s truth without malice . . . well, OK, maybe there was some malice . . .

    • puredog

      Don’t forget, his wife is a 2.

  • An Outhouse for the Resistance

    Scalia used to tie himself in knots to force his decisions to conform to ‘original intent’. ‘Original intent’ is just a convenient lie.

    • Cool_North

      You mean to fit the original intent into his decision? Kind of like the bible-based science.

  • IOnlyLikeCats

    The founders were racist sexist elitist hicks (with some variation) but if they were around to see this behavior there would be lots of screaming and slapping.

  • Swampay

    I really wonder how the reality show playoff thing played in Peoria. Clearly it’s an insult to the dignity of the judicial system and a ridiculous show that any intelligent American will scoff at. But what about the stupid-Americans, the folks who actually watch The Batchelor and The Apprentice and all that other dreck?

    Seriously, I wonder.

    • artem1s

      politics is boring for them. they might not have reacted much this time around but if Trumpenfuhrer keeps interrupting prime time… seriously, I hope the asshole is narcissistic enough to break into the Super Bowl this weekend.

      • puredog

        go falcons

    • Asterix

      They loved it – just like they love all the shit Trump has done. And Spicer telling the diplomats off? The assholes are still cheering that one.

      25% of the country – red-neck assholes, dumber than turd piles
      25% of the country – stuck-up elites who cannot communicate, at all, with
      the 49.2% who didn’t bother to vote.

  • andyshelt

    “A Law Professor’s Measured Take On Neil Gorsuch And Why He O̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ Is Full Of Sh*t”

    Fixed your headline for you!

  • OrdinaryJoe

    Exactly how many times does the word “Corporation” appear in the text of the constitution?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    Originalism? Biggest pile of bullshit ever.

    • Lucas Foxx

      Corporations are people; like Dick Cheney: no heart, no soul, no compassion for anything but a cold hard dollar.

      • Historicat

        And apparently deathless.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Habeas corpus is mentioned. Isn’t that good enough?

  • OneYieldRegular

    On top of that, there’s ample evidence that the “framers” to whom Gorsuch (my computer just autocorrected that twice to “Grouch”) apparently holds such fealty envisioned the Constitution as an evolving and malleable document, and that the Constitution’s codification and calcification into a solid block of parchment shaped granite only occurred during debates that occurred in the couple of decades following its adoption.

    Might I add that I am thrilled to see Wonkette now featuring its own in-house counsel?

    • Memphis Viking

      If the Founders intended the Constitution to be an “evolving and malleable” document, to be reinterpreted at whim, why did they put in a method to change it?

      • OneYieldRegular

        I don’t think any serious person would say that the Constitution should be “reinterpreted at whim.” Putting in “a method to change it” is part and parcel of the vision that a “fixed” (originalist) interpretation might not serve Americans decades or centuries down the line. It’s the notion that one can ahistorically go back to find an originalist intent with which I take issue. I expressed that ineptly, and should have focused on interpretation rather than on the document itself. If one considers an “originalist intent” as regards the Bible, for instance, one can see the problem right away: a lack of historical perspective would mean that those today who view its word as fixed in terms of interpretability are literally supposed to stone adulterers to death.

        • Memphis Viking

          Putting in a method to change it reinforces the notion that it shouldn’t be reinterpreted. If enough people believe it should be changed, it can be changed. But you can’t just say “well I believe it really means THIS instead of what it’s meant for the last 200 years”.

          • mfp

            that is the most circular logic bullshit i’ve ever read…you are literally saying ‘putting in a method to change something means you shouldnt change something’…you, sir, are the most self-deluded, dumbest mothafucka alive…now, once and for all, stop with the fucking baby-talk

          • Memphis Viking

            I shouldn’t be surprised that someone who thinks ‘people’ is different than ‘the people’ also thinks that ‘change’ and ‘reinterpret’ mean the same thing. I can only assume your obsession with baby talk is because you’re insecure about your own childishness and low grade-level reading ability.

          • mfp

            change and reintrepret…yeah, they have absolutely no relational meaning whatsoever….has it occurred to you yet that your entire line of reasoning leads to the inevitable and inescapable conclusion that we should just do away with the supreme court, you dumbass?
            i thought it was your beddy-bye time, junior?…go read your nitey-nite history lesson i gave you, or no na-na for you

        • Alternative Pony Ron

          The Bible example is a good one. Until the invention of ‘Christian fundamentalism’ in the 19th century, interpretation of the Bible was quite flexible, and changed significantly over time, even in the Catholic church. Educated people knew it for what it was – a mix of propaganda, historical trivia and social instruction. But they could remain believers, because they understood the difference between the document and the intent and message behind it.

      • Cool_North

        The Founders also most likely answered the nature’s call in the outhouse. Jesus, man, you’re such throwbacks.

        • puredog

          Well thanks a lot. Now you are forcing me to choose between “gun addicts” and “forced-birthers” for my favorite phrase.

          • Alternative Pony Ron

            Since they’re generally the same people, you could just call them gun-addicted forced-birthers.

          • puredog

            Yes, that is an efficient rule of thumb.

          • Cool_North

            I like their precision, but I wish I had coined them :)

      • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

        Boy, you’re wise! Did Sean Hannity give you this argument too?

        If they intended it all to apply without interpretation, how does the “unorganized militia” bear arms, when quite clearly they are referring to the “well-regulated” militia in the second amendment?

        Go turn in your shootin’ irons Yosemite Derp, you’re in violation of the original intent.

        • Memphis Viking

          Well, if you were capable of reading English, or bothered to read any of the Constitution before arguing about it, you would know that the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about the militia bearing arms. It says the right of the people. Funny how no one thinks that “people” actually refers to government anywhere else it’s used in the Bill of Rights.

          • pstockholm

            So the militia … did what exactly? Without arms? Paraded a lot?

          • mfp

            ‘people’ is not the same as ‘the people’…baby want a ba-ba and blankee?

          • Memphis Viking

            First of all, wow. That’s the dumbest comment I’ve seen here, and that’s saying a lot.

            Second, the people refers to the people. It only takes an IQ of about 16 to understand that. And that phrase is used repeatedly in the Bill of Rights.

            Amendment 1: “the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble”
            Amendment 2: “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”
            Amendment 4: “the right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”
            Amendment 9: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE”
            Amendment 10: “are reserved to the states respectively, or to THE PEOPLE”

            So five out of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights say “the people”, but in only one case do liberals argue that “the people” means a government group. Ignorant AND hypocritical.

          • mfp

            ‘the people”…correct…at the end of your above post you said “people”…not the same—see…i can be just as obtuse as you…annoying, no?….now, hush baby, daddy gotta change your di-dee and warm up your ba-ba…and here, something to read for you to go sleepy-time, and drift off to the hypnotic efx of reconciling the concepts of ‘original intent’ and ‘context of the time’….ni-night!

            http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

      • HolidayinCambodia

        Memphis, the original members of the Supreme Court ruled that the Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. The original members of the Supreme Court included people who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.

        I think their interpretation of their own powers carries a bit more weight than some anonymous internet commenter on a satire website, and more weight than any person who is not currently sitting on the Supreme Court.

        Although YMMV.

        • Memphis Viking

          Actually, of the Supreme Court Justices who made that decision, only William Paterson was part of the Constitutional Convention, and as far as I can find the only thing he contributed was to propose a unicameral legislature. So contrary to your insinuation, the Supreme Court wasn’t exactly made up of the people who created the Supreme Court.

          • puredog

            A little OT, but I don’t think “insinuation” means what you think it means.

          • Memphis Viking

            He was insinuating that the original members of the Constitution had special insight into the meaning of the Constitution since they included people who wrote it. The fact that there was only one, and he had nothing to do with writing anything in regards to the Supreme Court, doesn’t support that contention.

          • mfp

            ‘only one’ fits under the definition and statement of fact ‘included’–ya da-da goo-goo baby talkin fuck

          • mfp

            it wasnt an insinuation, you obtuse twit…it was a statement of fact that the Original Members of the supreme court INCLUDED–but was not exaxtly and entirely composed of (the definition and commonly implied meaning of the word ‘included’) people who wrote the constitution…stop it with the baby talk already

      • pstockholm

        “Whim?” Really? In other words when you don’t like the rulings of courts it’s “whim”, when you approve it’s “correct interpretation”.

        • Alternative Pony Ron

          You didn’t catch that right off? Yeah, it’s quite a piece of work, our new pet troll.

          • pstockholm

            Got home late GMT+1 here, haven’t had the heart to look at the news so I’m still upbeat and friendly and thinking this is the one troll finally that will prove to be susceptible to reason and polite push-back.
            Yeah I know, hopeless case. Me I mean.
            Give me 30 min I’ll be back to snarling. Maybe I’ll go check the post, some guy called Gorsucks or something? Got what, nominated?
            (Is there anyone else that reads the comments first? No-one? Oh sorry, forget I mentioned it.)

          • Alternative Pony Ron

            It’s mildly more articulate than the usual ones, but the opinions are still uninformed and the ‘facts’ are still fact-free. Won’t fault you for your optimism, though!

      • Thaumaturgist

        If the Founders intended to protect the Constitution from getting interpreted by unelected judges, why did they do that whole Article III thing. That’s what I’d like to know.

      • mfp

        “if the founders intended the constitution to be an ‘evolving and malleable’ document…why did they put in a method to change it”

        that is easily the stupidest, and least aware of it’s own stupidity, thing i have ever read–and seriously calls into question the old saw ‘remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people’

        • Memphis Viking

          It’s only a stupid question to people who don’t understand the topic. You see, when people argue that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ that ‘evolves’, they’re trying to convince people that they can just reinterpret the Constitution to fit their agenda. If the Framers intended that to be the case, there would be NO NEED for a method to actually change it, much less a method that is as difficult as the one they created.

          • mfp

            you are easily and absolutely the most self-confused, over-thinking twit i’ve ever read, constantly repeating the idiotic circular logic of ‘if they devised a method to change something, then that means they didnt want it to be changed’…khaa-rhyst, what an asshole…stop it with the fucking baby-talk, you are an adult and i am embarassed for you

    • puredog

      I fervently hope that Wonkette never needs in-house counsel. “Oh, Mr. Thiel? There’s nothing to see here, just move along.”

  • Stulexington

    Another interesting point appeared on my facespook, dead people still have body autonomy. Like to the point that we can’t take organs they’re not using anymore unless they said it was okay when alive. So forcing a woman to carry a fetus is insisting that live women have less body autonomy than dead ones.

    • Memphis Viking

      And allowing women to kill their unborn child is insisting that live babies have less body autonomy than dead ones.

      • SnarkON

        SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU FORCED-BIRTH MOTHERFUCKER.

        • Memphis Viking

          Wow. What an intelligent and well crafted rejoinder. I especially appreciate how your combination of all-caps and profanity lends it that extra touch of gravitas.

          As a side note however, I’ve always held that if you have to be forced not to murder your own children, it’s you who have the problem.

          • puredog

            I suppose some here might be convinced to murder your children (with votes, of course), if that were preferable to you. Just what part of “available, legal and rare” is it that you have a problem with? It’s an “AOT,K” thing, innit?

          • Memphis Viking

            The fact that murdering children is legal is an abomination, which also covers available. And over a million abortions a year is hardly rare. Also, calling for them to be rare is intellectually inconsistent for a pro-abort. If, as you claim, unborn children aren’t people, if they are just clumps of cells, parasites, part of the woman’s body, etc, what do you care if it’s rare?

          • mfp

            we dont

          • mfp

            speaking o which…did your mother have any children that lived?

      • SqueakyRat

        “Unborn child” is an oxymoron.

        • SnarkON

          I’m certain he (for Memphis Viking is without doubt a “he”) meant to say, “unviable collection of cells.”

          • Memphis Viking

            While I am indeed a he, it goes against your liberal beliefs to assume that I’m a he without first asking me what my preference is. You must be a hypocrite. Also, your insinuation that only men oppose abortion is rank stupidity.

        • Memphis Viking

          No, it’s not, but I understand you have to convince yourself of that because deep down you know it’s inhuman to kill children for your own convenience.

      • Stulexington

        Which is why they’re not allowed to kill living babies.

        • Memphis Viking

          Please. The kill thousands every day.

          • Stulexington

            Nope, not a one.

      • Cool_North

        There are no unborn children. Children are born. Metaphor is not fact, it’s a figure of speech, a literary device. Just like Adam and Eve never existed and the apple story is not even a good story.

        • clubseal

          At least it had nudity.

          • Alternative Pony Ron

            Briefly. Jeez, there isn’t any in the second half at ALL.

        • Memphis Viking

          Of course there are unborn children. Every child in the history of the world started out as unborn.

          And by the way, if you’re going to say it’s not a good story, you should probably at least know what it says.

          • puredog

            If it is “unborn,” it is an “unchild.”

          • Pazuzu75

            So you understand neither the Constitution or science! Good to see you’re an all purpose fool.

      • HolidayinCambodia

        Memphis, how do you feel about incest and rape exceptions to abortion bans. In favor, or against? Why or why not?

        • Cool_North

          He probably thinks is an unfortunate built-in consequence to the condition of womanhood, an “whatever”, in no way comparable with the importance of fetus gestation, the only stage of life people have any value in right wingers eyes, albeit as instruments of punishment.

          • HolidayinCambodia

            There’s a principled position and an unprincipled one, and I think I know which M’s position probably is.

          • Memphis Viking

            My position is that as tragic as rape and incest are, the child is innocent and doesn’t deserve to be murdered for the crimes of its parent.

          • HolidayinCambodia

            Now, THAT is a principled position, although it isn’t something I agree with.

            Next, do you think that women who have abortions should be punished if abortion is made illegal again?

          • pstockholm

            Well at least we know you’re a fervent supporter of Obamacare, what with it preventing (at least a few) children from dying for the crime of their parents being poor. So there’s some hope for your soul I guess.

          • Bad Tom

            Being raped is a crime?

          • Memphis Viking

            You’re not very bright are you?

          • Bad Tom

            That’s what my patent attorney always tells me.

      • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

        It’s not a child YET.

        A grape isn’t a bottle of wine.
        There’s a reason actual children can drink grape juice, yet we don’t let them have wine.

        But sure, insist it is exactly the same as a child. That’s a smart sound bit of reasoning.
        So I take it you don’t celebrate your birthday, instead you celebrate your Dad-Jizzed-In-Mom day, yes? Nine months earlier, YAY!

        • Memphis Viking

          An unborn child is a child, regardless of its state of development. And I’m not going to take advice about smart reasoning from someone who thought that grape/wine analogy made sense.

          • Alternative Pony Ron

            That’s bullshit, as any doctor will tell you. But I suppose you know even less about basic bodily functions than you do about, well, everything else.

          • Thaumaturgist

            In all fairness, my Viking, you take advice from Sean Hannity.

    • SnarkON

      But women and dead people can still vote!

  • Memphis Viking

    “But more importantly, it’s funny how the results of cases decided using originalism always seem to come out the “right” way. By that I mean the right wing way, not the correct way. That’s not a coincidence.”

    No, it’s not a coincidence. It’s because the right wing believes in following the Constitution, and the left wing doesn’t.

    • OrdinaryJoe

      Originalism, or whatever the hell it is called, has always meant decide cases in a manner consistent with the Republican Party platform, to hell with precedent.

      • puredog

        Well, that’s a natural fack.

      • Memphis Viking

        That’s probably because the Republican party platform actually takes the Constitution into account.

        • Thaumaturgist

          If the Republican Party could give half the attention to the Cinstitution that the Republican Party gives to”The Bible,” I, for one, would be delighted. Unless, of course, the Republican Party does the same job on the Constitution as the party does on “The Bible,” which, I guess, is the whole point.

          • Memphis Viking

            I said the Republican platform, not the things the Republican party actually does most of the time.

          • Thaumaturgist

            Got it. If the Republican Platform could give half the attention to the Constitution that the Republican Platform gives to “The Bible,” I, for one, would be delighted. Unless, of course, the Republican Platform does the same job on the Constitution as the Platform does on “The Bible,” which, I guess, is the whole point. Glad we got that straightened out.

          • Thaumaturgist

            Whoops. We’ve got another issue here. Republicans are originalists when it comes to the Constitution but aren’t originalists when it comes to their party Platform. Stop and think here, does that give you a clue as to why attempts to reason with right wingers are useless?

        • OrdinaryJoe

          Yah. Like that part of their propagandaform that advocates for making the US a Christian nation. Uber Alles and all that.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      You’ve studied Constitutional Law and the Supreme Court so you can contradict her?

      • Memphis Viking

        You don’t have to study the Constitution to see that the left doesn’t follow it, you just have to read it.

        • HolidayinCambodia

          What does “the left” do that is not following it?

          • Memphis Viking

            If you have to ask that, you’re either not paying attention to the government, or being deliberately obtuse. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though. Why don’t you look at what powers are granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, the only powers the Federal government has, and then look at everything the Federal government does. Anything they do that’s not one of their designated powers is not following the Constitution. But one big thing, that’s been in all the papers lately, is the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide health insurance, or to mandate anyone buys it.

          • Thaumaturgist

            See, that’s my problem with the Air Force. Constitution specifically gives Congress power to raise an Army and a Navy. Doesn’t give Congress no power to raise no Air Force. When will this abuse of Constitutional limits end?

          • phoenix00

            I think Memphis Viking needs to stick to football.

          • HolidayinCambodia

            Are those your best examples? Things that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled ARE Constitutional? How could they be unConstitutional if the Supreme Court says that they are Constitutional?

            As for the size of the government, you may perhaps be aware that there have been 17 Republican presidents since 1865, and including 36 years of Republican presidents after the New Deal, and none of them thought this big government stuff was unconstitutional. In fact, the government vastly expanded under all of them. Please post your complaints about big government problems from 2001-2009, when you probably were posting comments on the Internet.

          • Pazuzu75

            Right, because of course it’s not like theirs a massive interstate market for health insurance and that the Constitution give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Good to see you have the typical Fox-Trump fools understanding of the Constitution.

          • Memphis Viking

            You think “regulate” means “force”. Before you start calling people fools you should at least learn the meanings of the words you use.

          • Pazuzu75

            Please, point me to where the Constitution states that Congress can’t use it’s power to regulate Commerce to force people to do things they don’t want to. As a matter of fact, please explain how the power to regulate could possibly exclude the power to force people to do what they don’t want to. That interpretation would mean the Constitutional grant of power to Congress was completely meaningless. I mean, not only do you not understand the Constitution, you apparently don’t understand plain English. So again, yup, you’re a fool.

          • Memphis Viking

            I get it. You want a dictatorship where the government can control every single aspect of your life. But the Constitution doesn’t allow that. No matter how much you twist it.

            The Constitution grants the Federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate does not mean create. Obama tried that argument in defense of Obamacare and it was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. The Constitution also grants the Federal government the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries. Do you think that means Congress can force other countries to buy our products?

            But since you believe that Congress can indeed force people to buy things, if someday a Republican Congress decides to mandate everyone own a gun, I assume you’ll defend them.

          • Pazuzu75

            Let’s see strawmen, moving the goalposts . . .all the usual nonsense people like you rely on. First, you said “you think “regulate” means “force””. Now it’s “regulate” means “create” . . . next time it’ll be something else. Sorry, I’m not wasting my time watching you chase your tail.

      • Thaumaturgist

        Hannity has studied Constitutional Law and the Supreme Court? Hannity has studied? Hannity learned everything he knows about Constitutional Law, and everything else, for that matter, by listening to himself talk.

    • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

      Funny how Article 2, Section 2 says that the President shall appoint Supreme Court Justices, but for nearly all of 2016, none of that section was operable. Mitch McConnell essentially overrode it, by using same section that grants the Senate’s “advice and consent” powers as more important.

      How do you square that as “following the Constitution”?

      There is no provision for “letting the people decide” about filling the Supreme Court Justice, yet your right-wing Mitch McConnell suggested this very notion.

      How do you square that as “following the Constitution”?

      Since there are no provisions in the Constitution about “the people deciding”, why doesn’t majority rule apply? Nearly three million more people said NO to letting this man decide than said yes. The representation of average Americans has been overridden by arbitrary borders and gerrymandered districts.

      How do you square that as “following the Constitution”?

      You won’t, because you made a facile bumpersticker statement that probably came directly to you from Sean Hannity’s face-hole.

      • puredog

        Wrong Hannity end.

        • Alternative Pony Ron

          How do you tell the difference?

      • Memphis Viking

        United States Constitution, Article 2 Section 2.2.

        “…and he shall nominate, and
        by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
        public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court… ”

        Notice that the president by himself only has the power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Obama nominated someone. He hasn’t appointed anything until the Senate consents. So, following the Constitution.

        Calling Mitch McConnell right-wing is laughable.

        Um, majority rule doesn’t apply because the Constitution uses a different method of electing the president. And calling the different states “arbitrary borders” just shows how little you understand about the Constitution or its creators. As far as gerrymandered districts go, Democrats have a well known and long history of gerrymandering. When Republicans assumed power in 2010, in many places for the first time in years, they attempted to repair decades of gerrymandering.

        I bet you think throwing Hannity’s name in there helps your argument. It doesn’t. Even if I listened to Hannity, and even if he said something like this, it doesn’t make it wrong, and I see no evidence that you are any more of an authority on the subject than he is.

        • Thaumaturgist

          Yep. Constitution gives the president the right to perform a useless gesture. Makes sense.

        • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

          He hasn’t appointed anything until the Senate consents.

          Well then we don’t need to do shit for Gorshin, either. Trumpskiy had his little coming-out television party for him. Guess we’re done here! Thanks, Trumpkin Law!

          And if you’re gonna try and go literalist here, then, let’s say the Senate only gets to provide Advice, and then Consent.

          Therefore, they don’t get to do Dissent.

          Sure, why not?! You either say “I think this fellow over here would be nice”, then you vote yes, or you don’t vote at all. SOOO Originaliteralist!

          However, if one is to believe in case law as ahem, modifying original intent, rather than some rando wingnut doing amateur conlaw between foobaw on teevee?

          Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651
          Court says

          [T]he Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of ‘etiquette or protocol’; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches.

          • Memphis Viking

            Please, for the love of God, learn to read. The Constitution doesn’t say the Senate can’t reject a nominee. It doesn’t say they can only consent to a nominee. It says that a nominee isn’t appointed unless the Senate consents.

          • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

            Dude, I read fine. You should learn to comprehend. Then we might get somewhere.

            I invented that “interpretation” above, because your interpretation above is simply an “interpretation.”

            It’s not based on anything other than an interpretation, and definitely NOT PRIOR CASE LAW.

          • Memphis Viking

            No, my interpretation wasn’t an interpretation, it was a plain reading of the text.

          • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

            it was a plain reading of the text.

            As was mine, toolio.

            Find me the case law supporting your interpretation, or eat all the dicks (and leave your family hungry!)

          • Memphis Viking

            If you think your interpretation is what the text says, then you need to follow my previous advice. And you should probably see a shrink regarding your obsession with eating male genitals.

        • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

          As far as your claim about the “repair,” that goes about as far as the your other claims: it’s pretty much clogging the toilet drain, dude.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4d3f49145d707ca26d5cd30121c1b6c73c871dfcaca60e812663750789b9b14.png

          • Memphis Viking

            Mother Jones? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You might as well have quoted the Democrat party directly.

          • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

            You dispute the numbers in that chart? I’d like to see your sources for that. Remember your “Hannity” rule, you cited above? Yeah, about that. Bring some data, or eat two dicks. Or the whole bag, screw your dad getting any!

            Seriously, pal, you don’t have facts on your side.

          • Memphis Viking

            The numbers in the chart are irrelevant. Nowhere is it written that Congressional districts have to be drawn based on the number of Democrat voters.

          • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

            The numbers are irrelevant, now?
            You’re right about the rules of districting, there are no rules that say anything like what you claim.

            However the “irrelevant” numbers DO show your side as ratfucking cheat-bitches who will game any system they’re allowed to, and convince sorry shitwits who feel a tribal need to win that they’re winners, even when those wins are based on stacking the deck. “The rules don’t say you can’t!”

            You’re a winner, dude, really! It says so right here, on paper, even!

            Imma just say you totally won this argument, too, because.

        • Thaumaturgist

          Now, my Viking, I has a confuse. The right wing way is the right way but Addison Mitchell McConnell is not right wing? What must we call him? Left wing? Wrong wing? Wingless?

    • Thaumaturgist

      What I like about the right wing way is the right wing way believes in following The Bible, also too. (2 Amendments walk into a bar. . . . .)

      • Alternative Pony Ron

        It’s pretty cool. Try it yourself. Hold up a copy of the Bible or the Constitution in front of a bunch of RWNJs and move it side to side, and they follow it with their heads as if hypnotised. It’s quite inexplicable, but funny to watch.

        • Bad Tom

          While you do that, have a quiet confederate pick their pockets. Quietly.

          For alternate additional fun, put each wallet into the next RWNJ’s pocket.

          Will they freak out after awakening from their hypnotic trance, and see that very bad mojo has touched them?

          Will they just assume the new identity they find in their pockets, and quietly go about the random new life they’ve been assigned?

          Will their new wife or husband and perhaps kids be puzzled when a complete stranger shows up at home?
          Or will they take it in stride? After all, President Trump.

          Additional super pak fun extension set: swap men for women & women for men.

          • Alternative Pony Ron

            Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    • HazooToo

      Now you definitely don’t know what you’re talking about. I believe it’s YOUR orange goblin demanding the names of people who disagree with him, firing Judges when they don’t kowtow to his demands, and giving favor to a certain religion while banning another under the pretense of “preventing terrorism”, while Saudi Arabia remains off his list, despite the fact that terrorists from that country have actually attacked us. Also appointing his family and cronies to various positions in the White House and doing business with Russia like suddenly it’s totally normal for them to be interfering with our election, and we’re such best friends. You can fuck yourself on the way out.

      • Memphis Viking

        You think Trump fired judges and have no idea where he got the list of countries in the temporary ban, but you say I don’t know what I’m talking about. Hilarious.

        • HazooToo

          Think? Sally Yates. And the countries seem to be the same ones that Obama asked for increased vetting in, which as Sam Bee just said: “Is the difference between going to the DMV on a busy day, and going to the post office on a Sunday.” Also pointed out at several sources is the fact that 0… ZERO… terrorists from any of those countries have killed Americans. Unlike the ones NOT covered by the ban, which are all places where Trump has business interests. But now she’s back again, so go fuck yourself all over.

          • Memphis Viking

            The countries in the ban are all failed states that can’t vet their own people, and Iran, for perfectly logical reasons. You just keep telling yourself it’s because of Trump’s business. I guess if makes you feel better about the hate inside of you.

            By the way, Sally Yates a judge? You probably think you’re well informed.

          • HazooToo

            Back again. First, we’ve been vetting them. The vetting process under Obama took 2 YEARS. Two years. YEARS. And you still can’t explain why so many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and yet that country is not in the ban. And yes. I feel GREAT about hating a man who is wiping his ass with our rights and our dignity. And perhaps I did mis-speak. She wasn’t just some judge. She was our acting Attorney General. And we now do not have one. Because the one he wants to put in charge is a fucking racist, and he fired the one we had because she wouldn’t let him violate the Constitution you claim to love so much. In conclusion, please suck a giant donkey cock, and goodnight.

          • Memphis Viking

            The operative word is ‘acting’ in acting Attorney General. And you may have forgotten, but the AG works for the president, and he has every right to fire her. And since the Constitution doesn’t say everyone in the world has the right to come to America, and the law says the president has the power to suspend immigration if he thinks it threatens the country, neither law nor Constitution was violated. She was just grandstanding, knowing that her job will be over soon. And since Democrats have spent years calling everyone who disagrees with them racist, that argument has lost all meaning to anyone with sense.

  • SnarkON

    Great post. Now dying to know what Ms. McManamon’s Wonkette commenting name is.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      I know what it was, but I don’t know what it will be. She’s not out of class yet today, so perhaps we’ll see, when that happens.

      • SnarkON

        IT’S YOU!!

        • HolidayinCambodia

          LOL. No.

    • Scrofula

      Surprise! It’s Upsetti Spaghetti! (She gets really tired after long days of professorin’, gets kicks out of just trollin)

  • OrdinaryJoe

    Sadly, Merrick Garland was another of the unfortunate tactical decisions made by Mr. Obama in the course of his last term. Garland, while certainly a capable judge, had a record that appealed to the “move to the center right and the left will have no choice but to follow” approach that appeared safe but in fact was at the root of the alienation that moved enough people away from Mrs. Clinton that she could not overcome her large negatives. The living and ready nominee should have been a lightning rod point in the election, just as Dead Scalia was for the right. That couldn’t happen because Garland, as a sitting judge, had to be kept out of the fray. I propose that the real path back to power for the Dems is a move to the left which the center will have to follow, given the alternative. That means move hell and high water to defeat this nomination.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      I don’t know that it’s fair to say that. A more left-leaning judge would have been attacked for being that, and we’ve seen that attacking the left is a winning strategy for the right. I don’t think a more liberal judge would have made a difference, although with the vote so close in some states, perhaps it might have.

      • OrdinaryJoe

        Imagine the campaign rallies with HRC pounding on the podium and saying we will make sure that Elizabeth Warren is confirmed to the SOCUTUS. It would have killed. But that is only my pipe dream now. I voted for HRC and will Monday morning QB that campaign to my last breath.

        • puredog

          While I can be wrong, and often am, I think that your pipe dream now was a pipe dream then, as well. It’s kind of like Bernie. If he had been the nominee, the savaging that would have gone on would have been monumental compared to HRC and, for that matter, Swift-boating, and just as effective, IMO.

          • OrdinaryJoe

            I agree that Bernie was DOA as a nominee. Putin was not going to let a commie be president here. I just think that history will conclude that HRC ran a play it safe campaign in a time when play it safe was not what the voters were looking for. It’s not that people really want the swamped drained the just want to be sure the swamp only has the alligators they like.

    • Bad Tom

      SO MANY reasons have been put forth as to WHY HILLARY LOST, up to and including she wore the wrong color pants suit. That President Obama didn’t triangulate well enough on his SCOTUS nomination is just one more.
      ——-
      I think it was the Russians, in the voting booths, with a rigged election.

  • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

    I like hawt lawyer talk! Original intent with a tent-pole.

  • Michael Smith

    Well a big reason why Bork got Borked was that Scalia’s jurisprudence sparked outrage among legal scholars and the Democrats were basically ordered not to just lay down for whoever Reagan nominates next time.

    You’ll hear people decrying the politicization of Court nominees – and the origin of this politicization is very often considered Scalia. Conservatives will say that liberals had a panic attack when they realized that Republicans were finding a way to curtail liberals’ primary method of avoiding democracy – activist judges on the Supreme Court. In reality, a conservative executive branch, projecting as usual, was appointing activist judges.

    • Thaumaturgist

      Abe Fortas. Just sayin.

  • Bezoar

    As an originalist/textualist, surely Justice Gorsuch will interpret the Second Amendment as applying only to the arms in existence and foreseeable in 1789? Muzzle-loading flintlocks for all, as many as you can carry!

    • Thaumaturgist

      When, oh when, is the US Supreme Court going to get around to declaring the US Air Force unconstitutional? I ask this question cause I’m an originalist.

  • HolidayinCambodia

    Richard Dawson would have done it better.

  • Bezoar

    Wow, things have changed at Wonkette; I remember when the Wonkette comments set the internet standard for intelligence and wit. Of course, back then there were only about a hundred comments per article.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      You know who else used to post comments on Wonkette?

      • Bezoar

        Uh, Jim Newell? Ken Layne? Ana Marie Cox?

        • Tiny kaiju

          I thought they ran the place at various points in time.

      • Tiny kaiju

        Dok Zoom for one.

    • Tiny kaiju

      Yes, but were they a vile snark mob back then?

      • Bezoar

        Are you kidding? The vilest snark imaginable graced these comments.

    • Thaumaturgist

      One more enterprise crushed by success. Oh wait. Crushed by Disqus.

  • CATMAN

    Another Originalist/Texturalist that wants to permanently delete the first 13 words of the Second Amendment, you know, that part about well regulated militia, to give the gun fondlers free reign to do stupid things with guns like:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/30/1621224/-Inauguration-crowd-smaller-by-one-Homeland-Security-contract-officer-makes-GunFAIL-CCXXIX

  • SpaceCaptainWarlock

    I recommend the podcast More Perfect for a better understanding of the Supreme Court. For a long time, it wasn’t the holy institution it is made out to be today.

  • Alternative Pony Ron

    So Constitutional originalism is an invention of the 20th century for RW political purposes, much like Christian fundamentalism was an invention of the 19th century for RW political purposes.
    I think I’m seeing a pattern here.

    • Memphis Viking

      In the 20th century the right wing saw that government was straying farther and farther from the Constitution, and figured out that we needed to go back to what the Constitution actually says.

      • Alternative Pony Ron

        It’s really cute, the way you can believe this and still create parsable sentences. But articulate nonsense is still nonsense. Bye, Felicia.

        • OrdinaryJoe

          Like how the originalists adhere to their alleged philosophy of strict construction by ignoring the first 13 words of second amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…). Militia, security, State. Hmmmmm.

          • pstockholm

            A well compensated gun industry, being necessary to the the security of Congressional campaigns, the right of scared people to keep and bear an unlimited amount of 21st century weaponry without almost no regulation, shall not be
            infringed.

          • OrdinaryJoe

            ^^ Wins the internet today.

          • pstockholm

            It’s the commas!

          • Alternative Pony Ron

            Ignoring inconvenient facts has now been revealed to be their entire MO.

      • Pazuzu75

        ” . . . that we needed to go back to what the Constitution actually says.”

        Like how the 14th Amendment says “all persons” and yet conservatives completely and utterly ignore that plain language and instead read the 14th Amendment as only protecting an exclusive club that only conservatives get to decide who’s a member of? Or conservatives read “all persons” as protecting corporations but not, you know, actual “persons”?

      • sgt. jmk of the résistance

        Bullshit. Conservatives are fucking hypocrites who twist and bend to suit their own wishes.

        Disagree? One word: Heller.

        That is all.

  • whitroth

    Hey, here’s some originalism for you, that they won’t like: the US is BY LAW a secular nation. (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, negotiated under President G. Washington, unanimously approved by the Senate, with all them Foundin’ Fathers in it, and signed into law by President John Adams.

    How do you feel about *that*, Mr. Pence?

    • Thaumaturgist

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . ?

      • Strepsi

        It means OF COURSE they meant secular Christian nation! Didn’t you know, Originalists believe in the letter of the Constitution, except for religion where they’re mind-readers, and sex bits, where they want maximum government.

  • blueeyedcuban

    Don’t understand the originalism theory. Devised by the founding fathers. Not unlike the bible, it is to be the literal word …of …those guys. Frozen in time (1787). So, no amendments exist after 1787.

    • Memphis Viking

      Clearly you don’t understand originalism. Originalism includes the amendments, because they ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

      • blueeyedcuban

        That’s what I said. All the amendments were not there in 1787, ORIGINALLY.

      • pstockholm

        So not really following your logic here. You, at a given point in time, accept that there’s something called original intent which encompasses the constitution and all amendments up until that point in time. Then an amendment passes, oh let’s say one to abolish slavery, just to take a random example, and now your original intent encompasses that amendment as well, even though it upends everything you held as sacred two minutes ago.
        Doesn’t seem very … originalist, somehow. Am I missing something?

      • Begin Anew Day

        Punks like you give the rest of us viking warlords a bad name.

      • HazooToo

        Yeah, I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about. How can the amendments, which were passed AFTER the founding fathers finished the Constitution, be a part of their original intent? It they were, surely they would have put them IN the thing, and there wouldn’t need to be amendments made. So how can they be part of this originalism theory?

        • M.E. Lawrence

          Oh, stop being rational, you elitist, you.

          • HazooToo

            Sorryyyy! I keep forgetting to turn off half my brain when I answer these people seriously.

        • Memphis Viking

          The Founding Fathers created the process by which the Constitution can be amended, thus they intended for there to be amendments. They wrote the first ten themselves.

          • HazooToo

            Sorry, Honey, Sam Bee is on. I don’t have time for you right now.

  • Begin Anew Day

    You want some originalism? I got yer originalism right here in my pants!

    I’m not just one of these weak kneed Reagan/Meese style originalists. Hell no! I advocate trial by combat and case decisions rendered by a jury of my peers. Which in my case would be twelve robust vikings with bristling beards and sharp battle-axes!

    Yours truly,

    Lief Ericsson

    • phoenix00

      /reaches even further back to touch Nostradamus

  • BreakingDeadMen

    The Founders were men of the Enlightenment. They would be horrified to think that their words were being treated as gospel, as though human progress stopped in 1789 and nothing new could be considered. If Jefferson and Adams were here, they would bust these dolts down with Ill lyrics.

    • sgt. jmk of the résistance

      The very fact that they included a procedure to amend the Constitution as necessary indicates that they never envisioned the Constitution as static and didn’t want people to treat what they wrote as the last goddamn word.

  • mailman27

    Delaware, represent!! Ahem. Sorry.

    • HolidayinCambodia

      Zip code?

      • mailman27

        19711

        • HolidayinCambodia

          19806

  • HolidayinCambodia

    Still could use dick jokes. Wonkette can’t get too civilized, or else we’d be, I don’t know, paleolithic?

  • davefromoregon

    Filibuster. Really, that is the only path forward.

  • handyhippie65

    WE’RE DOOMED, DOOMED, I TELL YA! i keep getting gulliver’s travels flashbacks.

  • nosuchuser

    We know that their arguments are a scam, just like they do. Their base who they’re shining on are dying off rapidly due to the consequences of ‘right to work’, alcoholism, drug abuse, and ‘suck starting a shotgun’. I see this as a ‘self solving problem’ in the long term, and if they stack the court enough to get the rulings they want, and we’re not on-board, who exactly will enforce them? The mouth breathers in the ‘red states’?

    I suggest that we take page out their book and market a ‘tax payer protection act’ that guarantees that no state gets more federal money than they pay in. We’ll sell the rubes with pictures of the ‘others’ with lobster and such and they’ll demand it be passed. We blue states then can use the money we pissed away on them on caring for our own.

  • arundel

    There is no doubt in my mind that in the early Swinging Seventies, when Trump was a rich. strapping young buck on the prowl in NYC, that he didn’t have several abortion providers on retainer. During those crazy oversexed times. Or at least, that he did not pay for at least two or three “procedures”, for women who might have proved troublesome to him after the deed. Okay. at least one.

    Trump is the most fantastic, hugest liar and hypocrite that ever was. He never cared about abortion rights, he probably saw it as a plus. His life has been one of a NYC libertine, with his riches and gold-plated Manhattan triplex penthouse. Women, always. Of course perfect for all those fuckhead Heartland Real America voters who thinks this immensely spoiled rich kid Manhattan playboy represents their interests. He really thinks they’re all losers. They disgust him. Will be interesting when the wake up to that, if they ever do. They are in a narcotized FOX haze.

  • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

    The simple on Gorsuch:

    HE SUCKS just like his horrible evil mommy did.

  • Robert Cosmos

    Looking over the potential SCOTUS list that Trump provided, it is sobering to think that Gorsuch is actually a “moderate” from that group. I’ll credit Trump for suckering the Evangelicals into making a deal with the Devil to sell their souls and their votes to Trump in return for political power. Trump tosses them a few treats like a SCOTUS Justice and advocates to overturn the Johnson Amendment so that churches get to both not pay taxes, and use funds for partisan political activities. This sends right-wing Christians into a state of blissful joy that they have regained their place of legal privilege over their fellow Americans, Constitution and Christ be damned. Trump knows that by feeding this red meat to his base, that he can continue to run the White House like he did his businesses… without restriction, restraint or with any sense of responsibility other than to himself. Trump is counting on the opposition to be fragmented, disorganized and easily manipulated into turning on each other. I’d love to prove him wrong.

Previous articleJudge Orders Trump To Bring Deported Iranian Man Back To U.S., Be His Butler
Next articleNeil Gorsuch Thinks Your Boss Should Deny You Your Slut Pills. Yay ‘Religious Liberty’!