LAST CHANCE: Special 48 Hour Townhall Blowout Sale
Ragin' Cajun: James Carville Went on an Unhinged Rant About the Supreme Court
What Arab Nations Are Reportedly Saying to Israel in Private Is Quite Interesting
Chevrolet Went the Anti-Bud Light Route for Their Holiday Commercial
The 'Poop Map' Debate Should Be The Standard
Confucius and the Tiger
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 194: Handel’s Messiah and The Bible
The Deceit and the Truth of Strength in Diversity
Competing Interests Undermine Our Faith in COP28
Fox News Host Stuns Audience After Calling Out Network's Decision to Fire Tucker...
More Rumors Swirl Regarding Trump's Potential 2024 VP
Vermont School District Officials Claim ‘Detransition Awareness Day’ Would Harm ‘Trans’ St...
The Border Crisis Just Got Worse
The Most Level-Headed Response on Bob Menendez Comes From... John Fetterman
Biden Plans to Shell Out Billions of U.S. Dollars To Fuel His Radical...

Sigh: Dan Rather, Hillary Clinton, Other 'Progressives' Painfully Ignorant on Originalism

One of the more cringe-inducing elements of opposition to Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been ostensibly smart and accomplished people embarrassing themselves with very stupid efforts to discredit originalism, her guiding judicial philosophy.  A few typical entries, via twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and disgraced former news anchor Dan Rather.  Clinton surely knows better.  Rather?  Unclear:


Judge Barrett specifically said that a law has "the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. That meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my policy views into it."  She added that laws can be updated by legislatures, and by constitutional amendment.  In the case of women having the right to vote, that didn't happen magically.  The constitution was amended, and that amendment still means today what it did then.  Clinton's "point" blends the ignorant with the facile, seemingly designed to rack up likes from under-informed people who don't understand basic things.  In that sense it worked, of course.  Rather's tweet is somehow even dumber, inviting deserved scorn:


And here's one of the late Justice Scalia's sons urging Rather (with a reference to this) to make some effort to educate himself:

Perhaps reading a whole book may prove too big of an ask for the Rathers of the world -- so might I suggest a simple, idiot-proof (I think) video primer?  The first seven minutes or so should suffice:

I'll leave you with more facepalm material, courtesy of some of America's future lawyers (language warning on the tweet):


Law students are frequently asked to analyze hypothetical scenarios, using case law as their guide.  Barrett obviously knows this, as an esteemed and popular law professor.  That's different than a judicial nominee being asked about scenarios that could come before her as a judge or justice -- which is why the 'Ginsburg Rule' was explicitly established by RBG, and has been adhered to by numerous nominees since.  I'll leave you with this:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos