Why I Oppose Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee

President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee – conservative religious zealot Amy Coney Barrett is a self-proclaimed “Textualist” or “Originalist,” meaning a judge who interprets the U.S. Constitution not as a living, breathing document travelling though time, but interpreted by the exact text and meaning of the text at the time the Constitution was written.

The idea of Originalism/Textualism is that the Constitution means no more or less than what it meant to those who originally wrote and ratified it in 1787.

In other words, a “Textualist” strives to interpret the Constitution the SAME, EXACT WAY a judge in 1787 would have interpreted the Constitution.

Such a literal, textual interpretation of the original words that comprise the Constitution present a myriad of problems for Modern Society.

Justice Neil Gorsuch is a proud textualist. According to this approach, what Congress intended, or expected, when it passed a law doesn’t matter. What matters are the words printed on paper. In practice, Justice Gorsuch will strictly follow the text of statutes, no matter what result it yields.

For starters, here’s a short list of examples of those “problems”:

1) Amy Coney Barrett, like her former boss Justice Antonin Scalia DID NOT AND DO NOT RECOGNIZE TRANSGENDER PERSONS IN AMERICA because the original text of the U.S. Constittution does not mention or recognize “transgender.”

2) A convicted felon petitioned the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to regain his 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership, but the Appellate Court denied the Petitioner since he was convicted of an aggravated offense. Amy Coney Barrett was the lone dissenter citing the original text of the U.S. Constitution, Barrett claiming there’s nothing in the original Constitution that allows the state to deny Petititoner’s 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.


The fundamental question arises from this discussion: Is it the courts’ job to make laws work for the people, or to treat laws as linguistic puzzles? The correct answer is of course a court is supposed to work in favor of the people. How can that be? Too many people seem to forget that ANY OFFICIAL acting under color of law, whether elected, unelected or appointed, OWES A DUTY TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THAT PERSON’S U.S. CONST. RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES as they encounter or process that person in the scope of their employment.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, a county court judge, a police officer or nursing home administrator or education superintendent, because you operate pursuant to and in accordance with a given set of local/state/federal rules/regulations/policies/guidelines, YOU OWE A DUTY TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THAT PERSON’S U.S. CONST. RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES IN THE DISCHARGE OF YOUR DUTIES.