Why The Supreme Court Embraces Originalism, A Racist Legal Theory

Ifyou see the world through rose-colored glasses, you're likely to believe that the world is <a href="https://readcultured.com/why-belief-in-a-just-world-attempts-to-justify-racism-9cb519302586" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">inherently just,</a> which is a problem when you're sitting on the highest judicial body in America, the Supreme Court. Since 1789, when Congress established the court, justices have been tasked with interpreting the law. Unlike the legislative branch, which has the power to create new laws, Supreme Court justices may only interpret whether parties in cases brought before them are behaving consistently with the law. Their decisions, in turn, have a wide-sweeping impact on the lives of Americans. Originalism, a legal theory that at least five sitting Supreme Court justices endorse, refers to the notion that "judges must interpret the Constitution as it was understood when ratified." While this statement sounds race-neutral on the surface, originalism is racist since when the founding fathers ratified the Constitution, only White, landowning men were considered citizens. If we choose to see the world through their rose-colored glasses, then we would not consider Black people or women of any race as citizens, and thus, any effort to safeguard their rights will be dismissed. For instance, last summer, conservatives on the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving states to individually decide whether women's reproductive rights would be respected by state law. <a href="https://medium.com/the-antagonist-magazine/why-the-supreme-court-embraces-originalism-a-racist-legal-theory-51805b2a9fad">Visit Now</a>