QOTD -- Amending The Constitution By Fiat

 

"... The thing to understand about this [Colorado ballot eligibility] case is that, with the exception of the ruling’s partial unanimity, it is little different from many other recent big cases in which “originalism” supposedly carried the day, whether the topic was abortion rights, guns, voting rights, or something else. The conservative justices have a majority, and they may work their will. But the originalism they purport to adhere to is nothing more than a framework for reaching their preferred result in any particular circumstance. They felt that a plain reading of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment would lead to chaotic or adverse outcomes, so they not only ignored it but also essentially amended the Constitution by fiat.  [snip]

"The message Americans should take home from this case is that when Justice Samuel Alito says, 'I do think the Constitution means something and that that meaning does not change,' what he means is that the Constitution changes to mean what he would like it to mean. They should take home the recognition that when Justice Neil Gorsuch says, 'Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what?' he would never allow such a thing to happen if he could avoid it. And they should understand that when Barrett herself says that the Constitution 'doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it,' she is not telling the truth, but she would prefer you not point that out..." -- Adam Serwer, The Atlantic, on the "fraud of originalism" as practiced by the politicians- in- robes on the Republican Supreme Court, and as seen in their ruling on the insurrectionist Malignant Loser's ballot eligibility in Colorado (and elsewhere by extension).  Once again, to mistake any of the Republicans on the Court as jurists who just call legal "balls and strikes" based on a strict reading of the Constitution is a grave misunderstanding of the reality of this corrupt Court.