The court's new hyper-literal originalism is producing a weird jurisprudence in which some cases turn on two competing, highly subjective, highly-distilled, multi-century historical narratives. The narrative that gets 5 votes then becomes "Official U.S. History" for every similar case that follows.
This.
Literally no different than cherrypicking (and often obfuscating) parts of the Bible while ignoring those that are inconvenient to justify ones opinions as morally superior.
Crazy how the original intent of laws dating back to the birth of the country and various British antecedents all somehow align with 2024 conservative goals.
Yeah they shapeshift from literalists to originalists to textualists to just ex recto depending on which is necessary to get their desired outcomes.
Very occasionally one or two will actually act like they're constrained by the constitution or law.
