Uh, slavery was allowed. Slaves were considered 3/5 of a human being. And women could not vote. Yes, the Constitution DOES change over time!
Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
13 Oct 2020
Replying to @sahilkapur
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."

Oct 15, 2020 · 3:07 AM UTC

330
686
75
3,474
Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson
Again, my question is why is she even there? In the beginning, women were not allowed to serve on the Supreme Court, so, according to her, she’s not eligible.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Super Backwards way to think, amy coney Barrett is a disaster,,, and doesn’t even know the first 5 laws of the constitution! Wow, just WOW.so UGH! Does she want women to lose their rights to vote and slavery reinstated?(as an originalist) 🤔
Replying to @marwilliamson
Maybe if we find some videos of her treating animals like shit , suburban ww will cancel her
Replying to @marwilliamson
The three-fifth's compromise was intended to weaken slavery by reducing the number of representatives from the slave-holding south. theusconstitution.org/news/u…
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
She is wrong on that front, but also about the time it was ratified. It wasn't that everyone agreed and thought it was right, many parts were compromises. And, if she agrees blacks are more than 3/5 then she has already broken her own rule; people like her are not enlightened.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
On chakra alignment, you’re the authority. On constitutional law, you are not.
Replying to @marwilliamson
Originalism makes NO sense. The Founders structured the Constitution to be a Living, Breathing document. There is no way that that could have included words for what the future would present.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
*via the amendment process
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the first Supreme Court seats at just 6. So....looks like we need to dump the last two hired and skip the confirmation, if we are going with "originalist" BS.
2
5
1
16
Replying to @marwilliamson
You’d honestly be an amazing SCOTUS judge, Marianne. You’re far more self-reflective, compassionate, thoughtful, and intelligent than ACB. I’d sleep better at night with you on the court.
2
Load more