RT @BasedMikeLee: The American Bar Association = the lawyers’ wing of the Democratic Party The ABA has every right to be a leftist advoca…

RT @fightwithmemes: Make it make sense.

@DavidW_Writer @T_Whiz @merrillov3rturf @SinCityStace @YourAnonCentral @deepestsouth The “gun lobby” is nowhere near the top in lobbying. The pharmaceutical industry consistently tops that chart.

@maxasteele @2Aupdates how

Modern originalists not agreeing on everything is a good thing. It’s a testament to the richness and depth of originalist scholarship, and generally their interpretations are not radically different from each other. For instance, originalists can unanimously reject the notion that the people of 1868 understood the Fourteenth Amendment to encompass an abortion right. Right now they are discussing if the Citizenship Clause of the same Amendment mandates unrestricted jus soli citizenship, or if there is room to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship. If originalism were just a conservative ploy to advance an exclusively conservative agenda, then you wouldn’t see those debates in originalist circles. I don’t see similar debate in progressive legal circles because it’s all politics to them. The fact that not every case was originalist doesn’t mean that originalism was not the predominant legal approach. Jefferson also was worried about Marshall interpreting federal powers too broadly—not a rejection of originalism. I’m also not sure what alleged ethics violations have to do with originalism—if it’s supposed to be a dunk on originalism, then I guess corrupt Senators disprove democracy? You’re all over the place. To make it simple, can you find a legal tradition dating back to British common law that supports the notion that unelected judges can just reinterpret laws to mean what they want it to mean?

RT @Breaking911: "F**k the Chiefs! F**k Taylor Swift!" Eagles Fans chant as they burn and then rip apart a Chiefs Jersey. Via @ScooterCast…

Appreciate you acknowledging my humanity. To be frank, I lost you after the first half. We know that originalism was the predominant legal approach because it is deeply entrenched in American jurisprudence, inherited from British common law. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 418 (1821) (opinion of Marshall, C.J.) (citing The Federalist as “great authority” because “[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition.”); Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290, 332 (1827) (“[T]he understanding of the framers of the Constitution and of the sense put upon it by the people when it was adopted by them” is what controls—not “extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers”); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 57 (1884) (“The construction placed upon the Constitution by the men who were contemporary with its formation . . . is of itself entitled to very great weight”); Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887) (“It is never to be forgotten that, in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument.”); Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895) (framing the Court's inquiry into the constitutionality of the income tax as an examination of “what, at the time the Constitution was framed and adopted, were recognized as direct taxes” and what “those who framed and adopted it [understood its] terms to designate and include”); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 109 (1925) (Constitution must be interpreted according to the meaning that prevailed “when the instrument was framed and adopted.”).

@karljtaylor @ben_suter63414 @BestDogMama818 @SenTomCotton @elonmusk @DOGE This is precisely why he thought laws should be amended periodically—he recognized that laws retain the meaning they bore at the time of their enactment! Sounds like an endorsement of originalism.

RT @Gudabeg: @JustR_02 @petespiliakos No, because then it would be equally as lawless as a progressive one and just like it would have zero…

@100000slimes Conservative jurisprudence has not reigned for 50 years. It wasn’t until about Trump 1.0 that we could officially conclude the end of the reign of progressive jurisprudence, however.

@KSchleiffer @joshtpm @linda72135856 Kings were hereditary and could not be voted out. You can vote out a president in a republic

RT @MorosKostas: Gavin Newsom has regularly attacked federal judges - by name - as "rightwing extremists" simply because they protected Sec…

RT @2Aupdates: Absolutely hilarious how anti-gun groups are freaking out about the executive order because they think it will result in les…

RT @TheMossadIL: Eli Sharabi says he's "very happy to go home to his wife and daughters" in front of a crowd of bloodthirsty monsters. He…

RT @bonchieredstate: What I've learned this week is that there are some on the right and the center-right who talk a big game about reformi…

RT @2Aupdates: Everytown right now: "If they get rid of Second Amendment infringements, we won't have any gun laws left!"

RT @ChuckGrassley: This wk I joined Sen Kennedy in introing a bill 2 end burdensome reporting requirements that r causing veterans 2b strip…

RT @WhiteHouse: President Trump Signed an EO to Protect 2A Rights 🦅 Orders DOJ to review '21-'25 actions that may infringe on 2A rights 🦅…