1/ Barrett's totally absurd articulation of "super precedent" and why Brown is an example but Roe isn't, shows her mendacity. Her position is, well Brown is settled law because everyone accepts it basically. Putting aside if that's true, note the contradiction, please...
2/ IF Brown is now settled & accepted, that shows that things evolve, and the law must keep up with that evolution. Bc it wasn't always accepted. There were 20 years of resistance to it. So, the basis of originalism/textualism (the law is fixed) is undermined by this argument...
3/ And if Roe is not as universally accepted, thereby making it NOT super precedent, or if Obergefell isn't, that is simply a function of time, possibly. It may become accepted if given time. But if she ignores precedent to overturn it, she isn't willing to let that play out...
4/ But the main point is, you can't argue originalism/textualism and that the constitution is dead (Scalias view) and also argue for modern "super-precedents" that completely go against what the founders believed. It's all or nothing. At that point, you're just cherry picking...
5/ Because you know if you come out against Brown (which an honest originalist would do--indeed an honest originalist would have to endorse Dred Scott) you sound like a racist and lunatic...which is what the people are of course
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
