re: #26 HappyWarrior

Was just having a conversation with a co-worker about so called judicial originalists. Scalia’s showing why that philosophy is just a kind way of saying conservative judicial activist with his tantrum here.

I’d say it’s a stretch to even call originalism a “philosophy” of judicial action. It’s not as if its advocates actually pull apart all of the available historical documents to make their assertions, or concede that some issues simply weren’t addressed in a way that one could assert an original intent.

It’s a bunk concept that uses the mythos of the founders as camoflauge for judicial activism that favors conservative causes.