re: #375 goddamnedfrank

Josh says that the Constitution protects race, except it explicitly only mentions race in the context of the right to vote, nothing else. When pushed he admits he thinks that there was no Constitutional basis for Loving, but insists rather illogically that it’s that or nothing.

Somehow we’re supposed to magically divine the intent of the old, dead, straight white male legislators who authored the 14th Amendment, and use that imaginary supposition to override and completely ignore the plain language bit they actually wrote about “any person.” Because being a “textualist” apparently means ignoring the actual text whenever it’s ideologically convenient.

Originalism I’ve said many times is a sham philosophy. Unless you’re a medium. We seem to have a lot of mediums that double as judges in right wing circles. I jest of course but this whole thing is such a sham. Remember when they tried to repeal the part of the 14th that gives birthright citizenship to children of immigrants because they thought the writers of the law did not intend for that. Because you know there was no children of immigrants then. Hell the country was even more percentage wise foreign born back then but it was foreign born whites by and large then so of course they don’t look at that.