I cannot be present in person, but I shall be with you in spirit. If there is a support fund, please let us know how to contribute.
I saw Justice Scalia on CSpan a few days ago, speaking on the topic of interpreting the constitution. He made what I would consider an inarguable case in favor of Originalism. He also pointed out that the very terms of the present crisis - brought on by the (perhaps) well-intentioned fools who buy the "living document" fallacy - clearly indicate that the selection of judges has become instead a selection of the authors of a revised constitution.
This is, in iteslf, completely illegal. As you, I, and everyone else on FR knows, there are only two legal means for revising or re-writing the constitution: the amendment process; convening a constitutional convention.
Our federal representative legislature needs to be sharply reminded of this fact.
Go get 'em!
Thank you! You are exactly correct! They no longer consider original intent. The words and phrases are specific and all have well known meanings. Time to get some constitutionalists on the bench!!