these so called "originalists" on their crap. They sat there during their confirmation hearings, and lied through their teeth.
One even cited "Federalist 69" which outlines the powers of the Presidency; the framers made their intent known and the, Leo Leonard 6, in their infantile wisdom, thought otherwise.
Well, we can become "originalists" as well. Does anybody recall "judicial review" being mentioned in the Constitution? I certainly don't. I've never read it in the Federalist Papers or in Anti Federalist Papers. That's because The Supreme Court took that power for itself and nobody disagreed. And that was fine, until now. If reforming the court isn't a viable option, I say, that judicial review should be taken away from the court. And the "originalists" don't have a counter argument; this IS their argument, after all.
Is it an "extreme" measure? Yes, it is. But given the situation, an extreme remedy is warranted.
Please watch this video of the radio host and author, Thom Hartman, make his argument for this reform, and make up your own mind.
?si=lRoY_laBR5KNB_kT&t=48