The Supreme Court: Principled originalism or partisan politics?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

When it comes to our constitutional rights, it seems the two most important objectives on the Republican agenda were eliminating the right to abortion and restricting the power of the government to enact gun safety legislation.

The Supreme Court accomplished both in its recent Dobbs and Bruen decisions at the end of June. Defenders say the court was not sitting as a partisan unelected legislature pursuing a political agenda. They say the decisions had a principled jurisprudential basis of interpreting the Constitution in accordance with the framers’ understanding of its text, a theory they call “originalism.” Yet, that explanation does not hold water.

In the first place, if the Dobbs and Bruen majority opinions did not have an agenda, why did they reach out to decide important constitutional questions they did not have to answer to resolve the disputes in the specific cases before them?

In Dobbs, Chief Justice John Roberts called out the other five Republican-appointed justices for violating the established practice “not to ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.’” The case centered on a Mississippi anti-abortion law prohibited abortions after 15 weeks. The law did not say anything about earlier abortions. It was therefore unnecessary for the court to address whether the constitution protected such earlier abortions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-court-principled-originalism-or-partisan-politics/ar-AAZxAbs

[Native]

1. How anyone can even think this is an actual question blows my mind.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. These assholes hate to be called "partisan hacks" because they are partisan hacks

[Ocelot II]

3. Throw a rock into a pigpen; the one that squeals is the one you hit.

[Docreed2003]

4. What's amazing to me is that the entire idea of "principled originalism" is total nonsense

And yet media pushes the narrative like it's something noble. It's a fabricated concept that does not jive with the intent of the founders. The Constitution was designed to be an ever evolving document to represent the times. It was never intended to be written in stone and the last word. The notion of "originalism" was always right wing legalese meant to throw shade on any modern advancement for rights.

[The Magistrate]

5. Pure Partisan Politics, Sir

None of these purported 'justices' has anything like sufficient education in history, let alone the empathy to animate such knowledge, which could enable them to make any claim of having discerned in full the intent of the men who wrote and ratified the document in question. And that is without even enquiring whether such understanding bears the slightest relevance to circumstances they could not possibly have anticipated, or were even ignorant of in their own time.

The 'originalism' the black-robed hacks tout barely qualifies as an intellectual fraud, it has a lot more in common with a claim to oracular prescience, with no more than 'cause that's how I like it!' for a root in the sacred awe such pronouncement are to be greeted by.

[Martin68]

6. PARTISAN POLITICS. THEOCRATIC NONSENSE.