Suggesting an originalist is betraying us on a Constitutional matter is a non-sequitur, at best. There is already SCOTUS precedent on upholding the 14th. This was always fantasy, not a litmus test. I wish it were different, but it is not. We would need 2/3rds of the States to modify or repeal the 14th. Good luck with that. Cue the pearl clutching and embrace the suck.
@Milajoy Why did any of us think there would be a "win"? There is already SCOTUS precedent, ACB is an originalist and it would take 2/3rds of the States to modify or repeal the 14th. Fantasy. Cue the pearl clutching and embrace the suck.
@MattWalshBlog It is. We're still not going to see that changed without a modification or repeal of the 14th. Good luck with getting 2/3rds of the States to agree on anything.
@data_republican She's an originalist like Scalia - all the hype of changing the 14th is fantasy. Cue the pearl clutching. X is going to be inundated with emotional reactions to a Constitutional matter that has zero regard for how we feel. It's going to be an embrace the suck day, IMHO.
@NoName65616095@C_3C_3 It's already law. Unsure why we have any expectations about this matter. SCOTUS has already upheld it once. We're sitting here wanting an originalist to reinterpret the Constitution. It's fantasy.
I do not like it either. At the same time, it does not work that way. Justices have neither the power nor the inclination (except KJB of course) to change the meaning of the Constitution. There is already SCOTUS precedent of upholding the 14th as written. ACB is an originalist like Scalia. I do not understand why we have an expectation that it will go one way or another based on how we feel about it. Changing it would require the 14th to be modified or repealed - good luck getting 2/3rds of the States to agree on anything, let alone changing the Constitution. IMHO, it stays as is. I hope I am wrong, but hope is not a viable strategy. This reminds me of us expecting Pence to invalidate 2020: fantasy.