Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Enabler

The Republicans have spent decades trying to repeal Roe v Wade.  They were out of step with reality when they started.  Now that their cherished conservative dream has finally come true, they are even more out of step with reality.  Although Republican madness is obvious to millions of people, five conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme enabler who voted to repeal Roe v Wade, are bursting with pride.  Pro-life organizations are also touting this as a victory.  Their stupidity is exceeded only by their short-sightedness.

The decision to repeal Roe v Wade was made with the help of a doctrine called Originalism.  It’s not clear if anyone really believes in Originalism, least of all, its inventors in the Federalist Society, but it doesn’t matter.  It has been very useful for conservatives who are intent on getting their way.  In fact, that has become the definition of conservatism: People who are intent on getting their way.  If only their ‘way’ was good.

What is Originalism anyway?  In the 1980s John M. Olin set up the Federalist society and paid it to make the courts rule in his favor in cases involving his polluting company.  The Society promptly wined and dined judges, sponsored university courses to teach Originalism, and generally helped Olin avoid the nasty consequences of his polluting ways.  Amy Coney Barrett has been a member of the Federalist Society twice.  Nevertheless, the blind and the stupid applaud her latest ruling.

What does Originalism say?  It says that the original public meaning of the constitution is binding today.  Given that the people who wrote the Constitution saw the world very differently than we do today, it is reasonable to fear that this doctrine will have regressive and oppressive effects on American society.  Confronted with this fact, Originalists agree that some amendments to the Constitution might be in order, but the constitution has to be amended democratically.  Democratic principles are the basis of their doctrine after all.

There are a few problems with this defense.  The media is not democratic.  Neither is the electoral system.  If they were people of good will, Originalists would assure themselves that democratic institutions and principles are working before they impose binding meanings on their society.  But although Originalists claim neutrality, they act as if the proper functioning of democratic institutions is beside the point.  In fact, they deliberately weaken those institutions.  That is not a neutral position.

This shady, cut-rate, half-baked doctrine is not the sum total of the problem.  There is also the dishonesty and irresponsibility of the politicians who foisted Originalist justices on the Supreme Court, in plain sight of the people whose democracy they have stolen.  Last but not least there are the simple, lazy, complicit souls who have failed to develop their capacity for discernment.