If Amy Coney Barrette is right and the Constitution should not be "updated," then . . .

[LaMouffette]

I guess she would agree that all Amendments to the Constitution are unconstitutional and should be thrown out, including the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) and the 19th Amendment (the right of women to vote).

That seems to be what she's saying here:

Amy Coney Barrett on originalism: "That means that I interpret the Constitution as a law... I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. That meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my policy views into it."

But when she says in this quote that she "interprets" the Constitution, wouldn't that suggest logically that its meaning is up to interpretation and that different people could interpret it in different ways?

If its meaning were all cut and dried, there would be no need for the Supreme Court at all. Everyone would understand exactly what it means. Wouldn't that be nice? No Supreme Court, no appellate courts, maybe even no lawyers!

Okay. I just gave myself a headache. Or added to the one I've had since 2016.

[Walleye]

1. Ask her which is more important to her, the constitution or the Bible

[Celerity]

4. Bible. Dead lock.

[Walleye]

7. Yes. They shouldn't be afraid to ask her that

[AlexSFCA]

11. she'll say two are equally important (non-answer)

[Walleye]

12. Yes she will but that's not good enough.She takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the Bible

[AlexSFCA]

14. Is swearing done on the bible?

[Walleye]

16. You got a point there. Of Course it's not mandatory.

[AirmensMom]

17. I mean, talk about something

open to interpretation! And at least the Constitution was written in English by the people who were there.

[LakeArenal]

2. Did she ever use the word "logical"?

Probably not.

[bullimiami]

3. She is a liar. Just like the rest of the "originalists".

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. She has the mind of a child, just like Barr and the rest

They somehow have enough brain matter to process information and get law degrees but not enough to understand that Women aren’t second class citizens and there is no invisible man in the sky controlling things.

Children

[Walleye]

8. That's it.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Which explains why she belongs to a backward cult.

[jmbar2]

9. Do we go back to slavery now?

If so, let's do wipepo this time.

[Mersky]

10. The law says whatever she wants it to say, and she's not afraid to go back to 1691 to 'prove' it

Logic and common sense get drowned out in all the particularities is what I’ve come up with thus far. It’s all consistent if you see the world as she does.

[lastlib]

13. Hey, Amy Conehead--does it still mean....

that I'm three-fifths of a man if I'm black??

"Judicial review" is NOWHERE in the Constitution! That means she and her buds Clarence, Neil, Alito, and BeerBoy have NO POWER to declare the ACA unconstitutional, amirite??

If we interpret the Constitution EXACTLY literally as it's written, then we'll be forced to add a few dozen seats to the House of Representatives, and the overwhelming majority of them will be in blue states--the GOPee will NEVER take back the House!

[Bettie]

15. It also follows that she thinks that

slavery, the right to vote being limited to only wealthy white men, and black people are not full people.

Wonder what she'd say if someone asked her about all that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Constitutional originalism is bullshit.

It assumes that the writers intended the Constitution to mean certain specific things and only those things, while the truth is that the document was the result of a lot of compromising following some very intense disagreements, as we see in the Federalist Papers. What they intended to do was create a basic government structure that was subject to both interpretation (as is obvious by the fact that the text is short, simple, and often vague), and amendable. In Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803 by people who were around when the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court held that it had the power to interpret the Constitution, even though the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court does not appear anywhere in that document. I hope someone asks Barrett whether she would want to overturn Marbury.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. Pete Buttigieg on judicial originalism

Posted this yesterday

Link to tweet

?s=20

[GeorgeGist]

20. There's no place for a woman on SCOTUS ...

as originally defined.