Every “originalist”/“textualist” is this way. It’s an inherently dishonest position based entirely on finding any excuse to push reaction through the judiciary.
this ruling sets no precedent because I decided it doesn’t
The kind of thing produced by a very real and legitimate court system and definitely not just 9 unaccountable, unelected elders making decisions on a whim.
Yeah Antonin Scalia was a textualist until he wasn’t, until he was again, until he wasn’t.
Every “originalist”/“textualist” is this way. It’s an inherently dishonest position based entirely on finding any excuse to push reaction through the judiciary.
claims to be an originalist
does judicial review
Listen everything Scalia wrote was ideologically consistent because it used the same verbiage as Bush V Gore, “limited to present circumstances”.
ah, a personal favorite,
this ruling sets no precedent because I decided it doesn’t
The kind of thing produced by a very real and legitimate court system and definitely not just 9 unaccountable, unelected elders making decisions on a whim.
But remember, we can’t stack the court with 50 zoomer maoists because people would “lose faith” in the “institutions”.