Originalism

As the Barrett nomination moves towards a seemingly inevitable confirmation by the Senate, I thought it might be a good time to address the concept of originalism. Let me say first that mine is a lay opinion, but one that I feel should count for something. The idea that the words of a group of people (okay, I do mean white men) from over 200 years ago should be given the status of infallibility and should guide our multi-racial, multi-cultural society today is, to say the least, hard to swallow. Never mind that these men apparently all agreed that it was acceptable for them to own, buy and sell other human beings based on their skin color; and that there was nothing wrong with limiting voting and other rights to land-owning men. The fact that 27 amendments to the original constitution were ratified over time should put a serious dent in the idea of originalism. Besides, it's not as if the process of tinkering with the constitution is an easy one. Even the idea of equal rights for women is on hold for decades because of Conservative opposition. And that really is, I feel, the point of originalism. It is a backstop created by conservatives to make it difficult, perhaps even impossible, to make changes which they oppose. Hence the concerted, decades-long effort to create a cadre of lawyers trained in this school of legal thought and elevating them to the federal bench at all levels. The effort was certainly admirable in its single-minded pursuit of its goal and the success it has achieved. Now that they appear to have a big enough number of federal judges adhering to this philosophy, conservatives don't seem as concerned about "judicial activism", something they used to rail against not so long ago. The strategy is clear: stymie the Legislative Branch or challenge long-established law/precedent so the judiciary is left to "resolve" issues. In the last several years the courts have gutted the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, in effect taking away peoples' rights granted by the legislature, while at the same time granting "personhood" to corporations. Remember Lilly Ledbetter? The very fact that her employer kept her in the dark about her salary inequality throughout her career was used by the court to deny her justice on the basis that the statute of limitations meant it was too late to bring her case. Sounds to me like a particularly egregious case of judicial activism. If I am not mistaken, the Lilly Ledbetter Act was the first major legislation enacted during the Obama years. But the Equal Rights Amendment still awaits ratification. When it comes to the law, I tend to agree with Dickens in Oliver Twist: the law is an ass. Even though the replacement of RBG by ACB makes things look hopeless, we do have an election coming up. Hopefully, you have already voted. If not, please do. While putting the right people in office in one election will not undo the damage, it is an essential first step!