‘Original Intent’: Safeguard for the Supreme Court, Part I

The Coach's Team ^ | 7/31/18 | KrisAnne Hall

[Oldpuppymax]

In light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the left hasn’t changed its playbook. So, it is no surprise to hear claims that appointing an “Original Intent” Justice will bring back Jim Crow and chattel slavery. A reasonable look at history (which is not to be expected from the left) should give rise to the opposite conclusion.

In fact, a SCOTUS Justice who follows original intent should be viewed as a safeguard against a racist court.

The infamous case of Scott v. US (The Dred Scott Decision) was NOT an example of Original Intent but of judicial activism. In Scott v. US, the Supreme Court, through a series of historical errors, ignorance and racist reasoning wrongly declared that the Constitution never intended to make black men citizens and therefore intended them to be property. The justices ignored the history of freed blacks in America, ignored the drafters’ own words and inserted meaning into the Constitution’s text that could not be found in its plain reading.

The court’s judicial summary of the Dred Scott case is rich with historical revision and falsehoods and demonstrates the court’s venture outside of the text. The court claimed, “The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.”

Of course, there are no clauses in the Constitution that identify the “African race.” This was read into the text by the racist court. The clauses in question reference persons who are “other than” freeperson and a “Person held to Service or Labour.” This could equally apply to the over 300,000 English, Irish, and Scottish slaves brought to the American colonies...

[rjsimmon]

Other than the plain words within the Constitution itself, the only outside source ever needed are the Federalist Papers. Explains the document quite well.