Dave points out that the Supreme Court is not a religious body and links to the first amendment. Here is the problem created by the originalists, or what Dave calls textualists. The textualist will say that the establishment clause means literally the establishment/creation of a religion and NOT use of religious beliefs in the making of decisions. In other words the textualist uses a very narrow and very literal interpretation in order to support their ideology. Establishment does not mean use, they will say, they can "use" any already established religion. This is, after all, how SCOTUS re-interpreted the Second Amendment to state it allows citizens to bear arms for not just participation in a well regulated militia. Further, they will point out that the words "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, that is an interpretation made by Thomas Jefferson. #

Originalists/textualists are fundamentalists who specialize in using words to impose ideology on others for the purpose of maintaining their definition or order. Fundamentalism is absolutely not about freedom, and democracy is the enemy of fundamentalism because it injects disorder to their order.#

What should be said loud and clear is how the draft SCOTUS ruling that will overturn Roe v. Wade basically says that we, men and women do not have a right to privacy particularly when it comes to our body. Who you can marry, whether you can use birth control, whether you can possess pornography, whether your children have to learn a language other than English, are all past SCOTUS decisions based on what most I think would say is a natural, or self evident, right. And, what I've written here are just past SCOTUS decisions build on the idea affirmed by SCOTUS justices over a 100 years, what about future issues involving AI and the Internet? Worse, if as the ruling suggests one should only interpret the Constitution with the knowledge understanding of the world of the 17th and 18th centuries, how does it apply to new ideas and new issues the founders could have never imagined? #

Finally, I will never be able to reconcile in my mind how one can claim themselves a Constitutional Originalist (or Literalist) and complete ignore all the words of the second amendment except for the ones that support their ideology. How is it that current SCOTUS justices are so much smarter, so much enlightened than all the justices who made decisions over the past 200 years? Shall those decisions be null and void simply because we don't like them? #