Supreme Court's Originalism is a Crock

I never bought the legal theory of originalism even n law school. The idea is that the Constitution is bound by the Founder's ideas. Back then the reason I thought the idea was wrong, if not an outright fraud, was how the originalists ignored how the Civil War changed the ideas of the Founders and their Constitution. The originalists Justices did not know history.

Politico published The Supreme Court’s Faux ‘Originalism’ which I enjoyed as it reinforces those old ideas of mine 

The functional problem with originalism is that it requires a very, very firm grasp of history — a grasp that none of the nine justices, and certainly few of their 20-something law clerks, freshly minted from J.D. programs, possess.

Do read the whole article as it makes the case against judges as competent historians.

I distrust originalism for hypocrisy. This I came to only recently. Through its Commerce Clause cases, the United States Supreme Court mangled the Founders' idea of a federal republic and created an unlimited power in a central, national government. See my Law: No Limit on Federal Power. Seems to me the question to ask is who benefits from originalism's expansion of governmental power and limitation on civil rights.

sch 7/6/22