Interpreting the Constitution

Interpreting the Constitution

Like Obama himself, [Elena] Kagan did little to fight back against these notions, but there was a cost to their silence. Left unrefuted, originalism began to look like the status quo. There was no one to say that an eighteenth-century document that embraced slavery, that ignored women, and that limited the right to vote was an imperfect guide in resolving contemporary problems. No one made the argument that it was impossible to determine precisely what the framers meant in every provision (or that they often disagreed with one another about what the words meant). No one said the Constitution's values might be as important as its specific words, or that the framers never wanted or expected later generations to honor their precise understanding of their words or that the Supreme Court's own interpretation of those words over time has value, too.
The Oath - The Obama White House and the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin, Page 229

Dick Henthorn
28 Aug 2019