[pm90]

If you read the opinions they’re not very convincing. They’re making up principles to adhere to which did not exist before, and doing this for things that have broad support in the US population.

So it is quite chaotic out of the blue kind. Essentially the Judges are ruling by decree and will strike down any law that’s not explicitly enumerated in the constitution (and even there they will certainly weaken the law as we saw with Roe v Wade).

[rootusrootus]

A lot of people think it's possible to read the constitution literally and divine what the words mean. To them, all of this makes perfect sense, because they can't see how the previous rulings ever fit what the constitution prescribes.

I sympathize, but clearly there is far more to our laws than just the words on that document. It's just the set of principles providing some foundation. Hell, we started with "congress shall make no law..." and extrapolated that all the way to pretty much any institution funded by taxes. Clearly a literal reading has limits.

[rland]

In light of recent events, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that originalism as a legal theory was a decades-long project created with the express purpose of overturning the Warren-era jurisprudence. Roe is the first salvo, but there are many more regressions coming.

It was not created as a good-faith "alternate interpretation." It is not a cohesive or logical theory. It is, instead, a weapon, whose targets should be clear to everyone now. The way the weapon works is that you assume that it is being made in good faith and engage with it on its own terms. And then, again and again, get owned. Because the other guy is just making stuff up, and you, the sucker, are actually arguing.

I'm not quite in conspiracy territory yet, but I really would like to know what they are saying out loud behind closed doors at the Federalist Society HQ.