A Totally Original Rant About Originalism

by David Salzillo Jr. '24 on April 20, 2023
Opinion Staff


In the latest example of Supreme Court hypocrisy, Justice Clarence Thomas—the self-styled “man of the people” who prefers “RV parks” and “Walmart parking lots” to “the beaches”—has, according to the Beacon Hill Times, “been accepting luxury vacations from a Texas billionaire for the past 25 years.” Out of all the countless instances of the Court’s moral decadence, this one is the most eye-catching. Setting aside the obvious conflicts of interest, these revelations show how Justice Thomas’ populism is nothing other than a cover for the interests of the rich and powerful. Nevertheless, lost in these conversations about the “Supreme Hypocrite” is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of all: “originalism.”  

According to its adherents, originalism is the belief “that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law” (National Constitution Center). Put simply, originalists argue that the Courts should interpret the Constitution as the people who wrote it would have. If the Framers did not think the First Amendment forbade public prayers in public schools, then the Court must necessarily follow that opinion, and so on. Anything else, they say, would be a judicial overreach.  

In practice, of course, originalism has been twisted to serve the needs of conservative justices and legal scholars. Consider the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. To many, he was the public face of originalism. Yet his comments during the Court’s hearings on Obamacare in 2012 suggest otherwise. Namely, in his questioning, Justice Scalia infamously likened Obamacare’s health insurance mandate to the government forcing people to buy broccoli. But, even if you somehow think this comparison holds (and I don’t), the U.S. government has had the power to make people buy things since the time of George Washington; indeed, “President Washington once signed a bill asking Americans to buy a musket and ammunition” (“One Document, Under Siege,” Richard Stengel, from Time’s The Constitution: An Essential User’s Guide). As Justice Scalia ought to have known, a bad policy does not always make an unconstitutional policy. Unless he was trying to “legislate from the bench.”  

Scalia’s hypocrisy was not a one-off in the history of conservative originalism. In Citizens United, the Court—including none other than Justice Clarence Thomas—argued that the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech entailed a right for corporations to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on campaigns with little to no transparency or accountability. In short, corporations have the same rights as people, even though modern corporations 1) did not exist in the Founding Era and 2) were and “are artificial creatures of the State, subject to government oversight to ensure that they do not abuse the special privileges granted to them to succeed in business” (David H. Gans, American Constitution Society). Corporate personhood goes against both the Founders’ original intentions and Court precedent.  

Why is originalism so easily bent to the will of the American elite? Because it is a flimsy legal philosophy. To understand why, consider the following thought experiment: let’s say that the Framers did not consider the guillotine to be “cruel and unusual punishment.” In fact, let’s suppose that, like the 18th-century French doctor who first came up with the idea, the Framers thought the guillotine was a way of avoiding the brutal and barbaric executions of the past. Would that subsequently obligate the Court to proclaim that execution via the guillotine does not violate the Eighth Amendment? Better yet, what if the Framers wrote the Constitution in the 13th century instead of the 18th? Would that force the Court to stand by powerless if Texas decided to behead someone for a capital offense?  

The Court never needed to take such a stance to preserve the Framers’ vision. The Constitution was always about timeless principles, not their application. The Framers undoubtedly understood that they were men, and that they could not foresee every development in science or technology or ethics. Especially since many of the Framers disagreed amongst themselves on how to apply the principles enshrined in the Constitution, why should we take their word on the matter as final?  

The current Court knows all this well. Otherwise, they would follow originalism to its logical consequences (God help us if they ever change their minds). Instead, they take originalism to mean their peculiar form of “small government”—that is, small government for corporations and corporations only. But if the Court wishes to serve the American oligarchy, let them be honest, and not hide behind meaningless legal jargon.  

It would certainly save Justice Thomas the time of filling out his disclosure forms.

CRT, Pedophilia, and Conservatives, Oh My!: Senate Confirms Judge Jackson for SCOTUS Pick

by npatano on April 21, 2022

National and Global News

On April 7, the U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. This monumental decision makes her the 116th justice to be confirmed, along with the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation. 

The 53-47 Senate final vote showed a rather stark contrast in the support for Judge Jackson’s nomination, with just three Republicans joining all 50 Democrats to vote her into a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson is U.S. President Joe Biden’s first Supreme Court nominee. She will replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, who was confirmed to the bench in 1994 by former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

Judge Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Since graduating, she has pursued a legal career spanning both public service and the Washington D.C. circuit courts. 

The Supreme Court has long maintained rather homogenous appointments to the bench throughout history. Since the establishment of its first assembly in 1790, only five white women have served on the Supreme Court: Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett. Only two Black men, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas have served whileno Black women have previously sat on the highest court in the nation.

Following the appointment of three of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominees during his presidency, the Supreme Court remains a 6-3 conservative majority following Judge Jackson’s confirmation. 

Such a conservative majority in the highest court in the nation has led to increased apprehension among many Americans, particularly in fear that certain progressive legislation will be repealed. For instance, the recent abortion rulings in states like Oklahoma, Tenessee, Florida, and Kentucky represent the growing incrimination of women’s reproductive freedom in the United States, particularly among those who identify as pro-choice. 

Judge Jackson’s nomination did not come without a slew of attacks from certain Republican Senators, largely those who align with typical conservative talking points popularized over the last couple of decades. 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, utilized his time during judiciary hearings to criticize Judge Jackson on the basis of false claims that she promotes critical race theory. Commonly known as CRT, critical race theory is an academic concept that emphasizes the role of race as a social, rather than biological, concept, in the broader implications of race and racism throughout U.S. history. 

CRT, a university-level academic concept, has been weaponized by the GOP, with many conservative politicians falsely claiming that its teachings will be implemented in K-12 curriculum across the country. During the hearings, in response to Judge Brown being a board member at the Georgetown Day School, Sen. Cruz held up several anti-racism books in the school’s curriculum. He claimed, “if you look at the Georgetown Day School’s curriculum, it is filled and overflowing with critical race theory.” 

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (R) similarly attacked Judge Jackson, not on the basis of her qualifications or her legal merit, but rather to pursue another largely misconstrued claim that she has been a defendant of pedophilia during her tenure in the D.C. Court Circuit.

In response to both claims, Judge Jackson said, “the evidence in these cases are egregious. The evidence in these cases are among the worst that I have seen, and yet, as Congress directs, judges don’t just calculate the guidelines and stop. Judges have to take into account the personal circumstances of the defendant, because that’s a requirement of Congress.”

The Republican Party has long sought to directly engage in narratives that seek to polarize the nation at both the local and national levels of government. Similar tactics to the ones used by both U.S. Senators were employed  in 2015, before the legalization of same-sex marriage across the United States. 

After hearing from nearly 23 hours of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Brown was finally confirmed by the Senate. Judge Brown’s appointment to the bench of the highest court in the United States represents changing tides and the necessity for diversity not only in the judiciary, but in society at large to create just representation and equity. “Equal Justice Under the Law,” a motto emboldened on the U.S. Supreme Court building, is emblematic of the necessary equity within the juridical means of society; Judge Jackson’s appointment to the bench of the most powerful court in the U.S. embodies that notion of implementing systemic change.