We’re not exactly sure how Vox’s Ian Millhiser has managed to make a living writing about the American justice system, but if he can do it, anyone can.
Like, literally anyone can. Because Ian Millhiser is proof that you don’t actually need to know a damn thing about your purported area of expertise as long as you push the correct narrative.
Case in point, this take on SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial approach:
I wrote up a big explainer on “originalism,” Amy Coney Barrett’s approach to the Constitution.
The short version is it’s a tool she could use to completely remake the law in her image.https://t.co/Tw7eR7FGk2
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) October 12, 2020
Speaking of tools, how about that Ian Millhiser, huh? Not to mention all the suckers who are falling for his BS:
Superb. Thank you.
— Ken (@kenflorian) October 12, 2020
Fascinating. Thanks for this.
— Kayte (@anabazosa) October 12, 2020
Very good overview.
— Chris Odell (@__Chris_Odell__) October 12, 2020
It’s a very good overview of the mindset of the TDS-afflicted, but that’s pretty much it.
Originalism is utterly bizarre. Judges aren't supposed to"interpret" the Constitution, but they're supposed to do some sort of magical time travel mind reading of the "intent" of a bunch of 18th century white dudes??? Yeah, sure.
— Ichabod Crane Redux (@MichaelIreton) October 12, 2020
Originalism and textualism are code for right wing judicial activism. Make no mistake but Scalia did the same, inventing meaning and history where none existed in the record.
That's how we see the 2A stripped of the initial phrase, while GOPers look to eviscerate the 13-15A.
— lawhawk #maskingforafriend (@lawhawk) October 12, 2020
"Originalism" is chiefly a justification for elevating justices' own personal views as inherently paramount and superior to legislative intent. https://t.co/EsmRm10M0O
— Brian Young (@BrianYoung) October 12, 2020
This is a good read ahead of the hearings, and useful for me this week for both courses I am teaching. https://t.co/aKyWPfaN4G
— Jon Becker (@jonbecker) October 12, 2020
Dear Lord. Someone wants to use Ian Millhiser’s explainer to teach?
If Amy Coney Barrett really believed in originalism, does she think the founders would have wanted a woman to be a supreme court justice?
— Joyous Panther (@JoyousPanther) October 12, 2020
Yep! She’d have stayed home with her kids and let the nomination go to a man.
— Echo_L (@Echo_L) October 12, 2020
Oh.
An even shorter version, she is a fascist, and for the most part America worships them. https://t.co/XxuHAm9Yep
— William Moya (@wjmoya) October 12, 2020
What a dumb time to be alive.
