Tom Paine 1949
Diamond Member
- Mar 15, 2020
- 5,407
- 4,507
- 1,938
There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.
Originalism - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Last edited: