The next time I hear Clarence Thomas or Palin babbling about "originalist" ...

[11 Bravo]

judges, who will respect the intent of the framers, my head may explode. Are they not aware that an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution regarded one of them as a commodity, to be bought and sold; and the other as one who could not own property or vote, but who had every right to keep her fucking mouth shut about the issues of the day? Ahh, the good old days! Right, Slappy? Right, Moosebreath?

[barbtries]

1. yes!

you should send this to each of them.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. Well, that's not entirely accurate . . . .

While it is true that the U.S. Constitution recognized the practice of slavery, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that worked to regard black persons per se as "commodities."

Similarly, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that either deprived women the right to vote or precluded women from owning property. Those restrictions were imposed on the state level. And, I suppose it bears noting, the restriction on women owning property typically applied to married women only -- i.e., due to their status as being "married" rather than on account of their status as women (this being a long-standing provision of English common law). Typically, there were no such restrictions on unmarried women owning property.

[harun]

3. "Originalist" is just a conveniant excuse for them. They are only

originalist when they have no other logic to defend their fascist bullshit. Any other time they are whatever else they want to be.

[mrdmk]

4. "Make Believers" with no sense of history

From 1776 to the present, how many people had to die in the quest of learning how to respect each other?

These two are a real piece of work, as a pair they would not know daylight if they were staring right at it...