What does the 14th Amendment mean to an Originalist?

Barrett’s ‘judicial philosophy’ is pointless.

Congess actually spent time this week debating ‘originalism’ with a woman who was not recognized by the original document. We’re tripping over the irony here.

But to me the main point is the ‘original’ Constitution was flawed enough that it needed extensively reworking with the 14, 15th, and 16th Amendments. What would have those non-original reframers think of the flaccid reasoning of Scalia and Barrett?

For that matter, what would the Founders think? They created a flexible document because they recognized parts of the original Constitution were essential political compromises; a flexibility used by the re-writers after the tragic Civil War.

Scalia has apparently achieved sainthood and Barrett is his most devout disciple. But Scalia was reduced to using grammar to achieve his goals, his arguments often hanging on the placement of a comma. Reasoning like that reeks of desperation.

So we have a new justice whose bonafides include she’s somewhat of a grammar-Nazi and has seven children. I mention the children because every Republican mentioned the children dozens of times, and Barrett herself paraded them around The Virus Capital of The World like they were Exhibit A.

Having been a child I can easily imagine what said children thought of being locked up in a conference room while mommy played footsie with Ted Cruz.