idk how anyone can be taken seriously if they're a judge and their entire set of principles is how well any modern law complies with a 200 year old document that was outdated before it was published
They're cynical true believers, though. The originalist or limited interpretations are used highly selectively to meet whatever right wing goal they have in mind. The blatant nonsense is presented directly to them during argument and they choose to pretend it didn't exist or come up with a transparently inconsistent argument so that they can pretend to have addressed it.
"This 200 year old document didn't say so explicitly so it doesn't count" is pretextual, and buying into the idea of the pretext as being the actual reason is part of what gives it power.
idk how anyone can be taken seriously if they're a judge and their entire set of principles is how well any modern law complies with a 200 year old document that was outdated before it was published
They're cynical true believers, though. The originalist or limited interpretations are used highly selectively to meet whatever right wing goal they have in mind. The blatant nonsense is presented directly to them during argument and they choose to pretend it didn't exist or come up with a transparently inconsistent argument so that they can pretend to have addressed it.
"This 200 year old document didn't say so explicitly so it doesn't count" is pretextual, and buying into the idea of the pretext as being the actual reason is part of what gives it power.
deleted by creator
Abolish Great Man Theory!
Yeah but that's because there's only one book about socialism and Marx wrote it. No other advances in theory since then.