With the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the USA has dramatically shifted towards a more textualist (or originalist) interpretation of the Constitution. But should we really be letting Constitutional fan fiction become legal precedent for decades to come?

Now, you might be thinking that I’m being too harsh to subscribers to “a legitimate practice in Constitutional law” but who in their right mind looks at a document written by a bunch of rich, white guys who barely washed their dicks and thinks, “I know what these dumb-fucks were thinking when they wrote this”?

The entire practice is predicated on figuring out what these probably neuro-syphilis-ridden whiney little bitches who wanted to pay less money for their tea meant when they turned their collective temper tantrum into a physical declaration of war and a set of laws. But wait! There’s more! These “textualists” who definitely know what the framers meant even though the English language has drastically changed in the two centuries since the Constitution was written actually IGNORE any writings that clarify the FRAMERS’ OWN FUCKING THOUGHTS! Well, as long as those thoughts “aren’t cannon” to the interpreter. Like, I don’t know, Thomas Fucking Jefferson saying that the Constitution is “a living document” meant to evolve as American society evolves!

Now, you might be thinking, these shit-for-brains “judges” have to at least be consistent in their interpretations of the Constitution. Surely, they must take each part of the document and interpret it as it would have been interpreted in the 19th Century. Of course they do.

Since you’re reading this and you can’t hear it in my voice, that was sarcasm and you’re stupid for thinking otherwise. No, they are not consistent, because, while they interpret some things like the Equal Protection Clause as if we were back in the 1860’s when it was introduced, they like to let other definitions evolve with the times. Because honestly, after everything I’ve said, did you really think they would limit the definition of “arms” to a musket that can fire a round every few minutes instead of a semi-automatic assault rifle that can fire a few hundred rounds in a minute? No, because the founding fathers would WANT you to have that military grade human deer hunting rifle! Never mind other people’s inalienable right to life.

And here’s the kicker to the mental gymnastics and hoop jumping these Alexander Hamilton and James Madison stans have to do to justify their Constitutional fan fiction: nowhere in the Constitution including the amendments is the concept of Judicial Review stated. The founding fathers they simp for NEVER give them the right to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws and actions of the executive branch accordingly. But do they continue to wield with impunity this power that has only been given to them by legal precedent? Of fucking course they do.

Now, I have a lot of problems with the way the judiciary operates. The concept of elected judges completely baffles me and the process of appeals is designed to punish poor people. But the Supreme Court being able to interpret the Constitution is something that actually makes sense to me. But that doesn’t mean that I want a bunch of wannabe Nic Cages to set legal precedent. That’s just fucking stupid.