Jill Lepore

So we want to gain power and we want to gain seats on the federal bench because

But then we don't want to do what they did because we've been saying that's not allowed and we can't be that hypocritical.

So they're like, OK, well, what we're going to do actually from the bench is return to the original meaning, original understanding of the Constitution.

And it's that logic that gets you to that's how ultimately they overturn Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision in 2022 by saying, you know, the right to privacy is not in the Constitution.

We can't.

amend from the bench, that's wrong.

But what we'll do is we'll return our interpretation to the original meaning of the Constitution.

So it's a way of exercising a tremendous amount of judicial power in the guise of not constitutional change, but constitutional restoration.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's really kooky.

And like, the more you look at it, just like flat, like, like, look at it, look at it.

You're like, it's just such a rank nonsense.

And it also isn't original.

It's not how anyone interpreted the Constitution when the Constitution was first put into effect.

So it's odd, but it is in tension with, again, what I call the philosophy of amendment.

If the point of the Constitution is a point of the Constitution is going to provide stability and transparency and accountability, but it can also be changed through this peaceful means.

The idea that the obligation of the Supreme Court is to keep turning back the clock, keep undoing change, seems to me to contradict the original Constitution.

I mean, I think I try to say like think about originalism like I I think very smart people are originalists and they're very smart, very principled people.

And I respect them.