3 ms·

Ignoring the fact that originalism as practiced is an embarrassing judicial philosophy, > Interracial marriage has existed for pretty much all of human history

Ignoring the fact that originalism as practiced is an embarrassing judicial philosophy, > Interracial marriage has existed for pretty much all of human history is not the answer to the question originalism is asking. It asks whether there is a historical precedence for protecting that action as a right. You don't need to look any farther than this very ruling! Abortion has been practiced since the beginning recorded history (and likely much longer) and books like the bible even instruct you on how to perform one. That history has no bearing on Alito or Thomas.

HideousKojima 4y ago
>books like the bible even instruct you on how to perform one Not really, that depends on which translation of Numbers 5 you're looking at. It's not clear at all that the "Ordeal of Bitter Water" was supposed to induce a miscarriage.
- liminal 4y ago
  If GP is in fact referring to the sotah, then it would contradict their argument even more because it is explicitly the husband having power over the woman's body without needing her consent or even any justifying evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    > then it would contradict their argument to be clear, its pretty irrelevant to the argument because the bible is just one such example of the history of abortion. There are hundreds more and if it would help you can pretend I mentioned one of those instead.