re: #98 LeftyRambles2413 (HappyWarrior)

Originalism is such a sham philosophy.

There are many good arguments vs. originalism, but I like this one for its simplicity:

The constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment for crimes. Should the standard for what counts as cruel and unusual be forever fixed to what was customary in 1789?

Yes is the only possible consistent answer for an originalist, but that is batshit insane.

No is the only realistic answer, even from an originalist. But this exposes originalism as a fraud having no purpose other than to selectively support the prejudices of jurists who engage in it.