Day 93 – My journey to find reasons to vote for Hillary rather than just against Trump.
 
So. The Supremes.
 
This post is going to be hard to write without going negative (I promised, and I’m a woman of my word), so bear with me. There is a lot of talk about “Constitutional judges” and “originalism,” which references the desire to interpret the law based on how the original framers of the Constitution would have.
 
In my opinion, this is problematic in a few ways; primarily: the writers of the Constitution could not have predicted today’s world: copyright law, privacy issues, global relationships, the capabilities of today’s guns, as well as all the cultural changes. So, I think their words are ill equipped to accommodate the massive changes in the world. This means we’re left with imagining their intent.
 
My other concern with originalism in its current form is that it seems to go one way: conservative. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I don’t see anything in the Constitution that suggests that corporations ought to have the same rights and power as individuals, for example. And yet…
 
Everything in Hillary’s agenda seems to support the rights of the individual to thrive in today’s environment: it is about choice: to vote, to marry, to control their own bodies, without restricting anyone else. While I, of course, would like to see the 2nd Amendment overturned, Hillary does not. (I know, I know, I will never win this one.) So, even the restrictions I might like to see are not included in her plans (making her something of an originalist) and keeping it about choice. Sigh.
 
For those conservatives who are supporting Trump only because of the Supreme Court, please read the analysis provided in The Atlantic article I included below. It sheds some light on specific rulings that you might care about and a liberal court’s effect on originalism.