It looks like Cosmo is expanding its horizons to spread even more BS to unsuspecting women.
It’s not another one of their endless ‘How to Have The Best Sex of Your Life’ articles.
No, they’ve decided to weigh in on political issues.
Alongside such meaty subjects as, ‘How Wearing Hair Extensions Taught Me To Value My Own Hair‘, ‘You Have to See This Drag Queen’s Mesmerizing Makeup Transformation‘ and ‘A Terrible Thing Happened to This Woman’s Belly Button After Giving Birth‘ is an article dissing Neil Gorsuch being a ‘Constitutional Originalist’.
The article is titled, ‘9 Reasons Constitutional Originalism Is Bulls***.’
It’s written by NYU Law graduate, Jill Filipovic, and contains all of the hard-hitting insights you would expect from Cosmo.
Filipovic enumerates 9 points of contention.
1. “No one is really an originalist.”
Filipovic assumes that the actual words of the Constitution don’t matter to judges. She says they just rule on their own ideology. She uses the example of DC v. Heller which reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms. She says it wasn’t originalist because she knows that the founders meant to restrict the right to bear arms to militias.
(She didn’t note in her article if she determined this information via seance, Ouija board, or past life memories.)
2. “Societies evolve, and that’s a good thing.”
Filipovic says that ‘new information’ — like science — should be used to interpret the Constitution. But she confuses the role of the Judicial and the Legislative branches of government.
Go back and take Government & Politics 101, Ms. Filipovic.
3. “Words evolve to reflect changing norms.”
This one she’s actually right on. She says that words like ‘equal’ didn’t include minorities or women, and that’s why we have Constitutional Amendments 14 and 19. It’s not the role of the Court to change the wording.
4. “Technology evolves, and the law has to keep up.”
There are indeed technological advancements that was unimaginable when the founders wrote the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that the Constitution should be ditched to expedient policy preferences by activist judges. There is a founding document for a reason.
5. “Originalism is a cover for legal discrimination.”
And here comes the ‘conservatives are bigots’. Impressive that she gets all the way to the midpoint before bringing it up, though — so, kudos!
Filipovic again confuses the roles of Judiciary and Legislature and, again, fails to note the existence of amendments.
The more she writes, the worse she makes the NYU Law program look!
6. “Not even the founders were originalists.”
See Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
‘The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.‘
7. “The founders weren’t fortune tellers and couldn’t predict every possible legal issue.”
True. That’s why we have Legislatures. The Founders enumerated powers and the 9th Amendment allowed for other rights to be retained by the people.
[I feel a bit like a broken record.]
8. “No one really wants to live in an originalist country.”
Many do. We call them ‘Republicans’.
Her premise that if the courts weren’t ‘activist’, we’d lose rights is asinine.
Much like the rest of her article.
9. “A Constitution that doesn’t reflect changing norms and realities is a Constitution that would eventually prove itself ineffectual and irrelevant.”
Here, Filipovic advocates for a Supreme Court that is unaccountable to the Legislative and Executive Branches. She appeals for a ‘Judicial Oligarchy’ with the Supreme Wisdom held in the hands of 9 judges that can render their decisions based on their own ideological preferences that are not founded on an archaic document.
That. Was. Painful.
Aren’t you glad we at ClashDaily read that crap so you didn’t have to?