Buyer’s Remorse? Scott Jennings Lays to Rest Notion that MAGA Voters Are Leaving...
Victor Davis Hanson: Leftist Europeans Drew Inspiration From Democrat Party in Jailing Mar...
Elie Mystal Wants to Eliminate Voter Registration Laws Because He Claims Fraud Doesn’t...
Family-Run Brewery Destroyed by Hurricane Helene Gets Help Rebuilding From Unexpected Bene...
Cory Booker Say He Doesn’t Define Himself by Who He’s Against After Going...
Don’t Expect 24/7 Coverage of Teen Stabbed at Track Meet
Rep. Jasmine Crockett Is Going to Say She Doesn’t Like Elon Musk ‘50,000...
New Book: Barack Obama Worked 'Behind the Scenes' to Derail Kamala Harris
Letitia James Heard About a Head Start Program Closed Down Because of Trump's...
Stephanie Turner Female Athlete Who Refused to Fence Against a Male Speaks Out...
Listen, Fat: '60 Minutes' Is LYING to You About Obesity and Weight Loss
Katie Pavlich Has a GREAT Idea That Would Keep the Formerly Taxpayer Funded...
LOL: FactPost Wants You to Believe That Grocery Prices Have Already Increased By...
See You in Court! Michigan Judge Okay's White Man's Racial Discrimination Suit Against...
Sen. Mazie Hirono Declares Dan Bongino Is Not at All Qualified

Could Cosmo's attempted takedown of Gorsuch be more pathetic? You be the judge; Updated

OK, this settles it: SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch simply cannot be confirmed. Why? Because he’s a constitutional originalist, and that’s something that the sharp legal minds at Cosmopolitan just cannot abide:

Advertisement

Sounds like we’re in for a series of compelling arguments.

Jill Filipovic writes:

Part of the case for Gorsuch (or the case against him, depending on your view) is that he says he’s a constitutional originalist, a legal ideology most closely identified with Scalia, the judge whose seat he may fill. Constitutional originalism is the theory that judges should interpret the Constitution as its authors meant it when they wrote it — that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document as more progressive legal scholars claim, but a black-and-white document to be read according to the literal text and what the writers meant when they penned it. It’s a compelling vision, one that positions judges not as moral agents but simply neutral translators of the written word, seeking solely to carry out the law and not create it.

But it’s also a false one — a role that is both impossible and undercut by its own conceit, given that the writers of the Constitution arguably intended for it to be a living document. And yet Gorsuch remains a proponent. Here’s why his originalist theory is bullshit.

Advertisement

Buckle up, buckaroos. You’re in for a treat:

https://twitter.com/wupton/status/844257018324156418

https://twitter.com/GlomarResponder/status/844254894781616129

https://twitter.com/BryanJacoutot/status/844259612484354049

https://twitter.com/BrianRKnight/status/844258622809038853

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/molratty/status/844256616635498496

We’re shocked — shocked! — that Filipovic and Cosmo are full of it. You know, because we’ve come to expect so much better from these ladies.

https://twitter.com/VixenRogue/status/844256181417738240

https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/844263880280956930

Advertisement

Probably.

***

Update:

Well, well, well … look at this:

Nice try, Jill. But too little, too late.

***

Related:

OMG: Check out this ’embarrassing’ reason Sen. Dianne Feinstein fears constitutional ‘originalists’

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement