Justice Thomas addresses the progressive attack on America’s freedom

April 21, 2026

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990. And, on July 1, 1991, Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States, and he was confirmed by the Senate on October 15, 1991.

Prior to that he earned his Juris Doctor degree in 1974 from Yale Law School. He was an assistant attorney general in Missouri, served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

He is the longest-serving justice since Anthony Kennedy's retirement in 2018. And, since the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia, he is the Court's foremost originalist.

Originalist’s sensible approach is that the laws and the U.S. Constitution must be understood in terms of what they meant when they were enacted, not some modern interpretation that ignores their original meaning and purpose, and instead is interpreted as if the law or Constitution was just enacted.

Thomas, therefore, is a “judicial conservative,” which is not a political conservative, but one who adheres to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution, rather than applying liberal thinking to the process, which means a law or the Constitution can mean different things at different times.

Speaking last week at the University of Texas Austin School of Law, Thomas addressed what he identified as a critique of modern political trends. He said that America’s founding principles are under attack from ideological shifts in academia and government.

The values that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor,” and are under assault by progressives. "Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government," Thomas told the audience. This movement rejects the idea that rights come from God and instead places complete authority in government institutions, Thomas said.

Our founding documents assert the concept that all people are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. The definition of unalienable (or inalienable) is that rights are fundamental, inherent entitlements that cannot be taken away, sold, or transferred, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

And, Thomas noted that the Constitution was designed to limit government power, and to acknowledge and protect our liberties.

These documents protected Americans from centralized government authority and the majority controlling the minority. He cited principles — such as separation of powers and federalism — as safeguards against centralized authority and majority overreach, which are characteristics of many less-free nations.

History, he said, offers many lessons on the dangers of abandoning natural rights, where strong governments have suppressed those rights. Again, he noted that our system was intentionally designed to prevent this by restraining the government and empowering the citizenry.

But progressivism prefers the government to control everything, even the individual freedoms that the Constitution guarantees us, destroying those freedoms.

And history, Thomas said, is rife with examples of powerful governments suppressing individual freedoms, and the terrible results that followed.

He traces the roots of progressivism back about a hundred years, to early 20th-century, where figures such as President Woodrow Wilson advocated for a larger and more powerful federal government, drawing his inspiration from what had occurred in European nations.

Wilson also said that the Constitution should be read in light of changing conditions. But that is wrong. The Constitution must be read and understood as when it was first created. If changes are deserved, then they can be made through the established process, not simply by current justices who don’t like them, or don’t understand them, simply pretending they don’t exist.

And that also holds true for fundamental principles. Those principles cannot simply be ignored. They have been firmly established through due process. If there is good reason and ample support for changing them, then go through the established process to change them.

During this troubled time of the worst political division in decades, Thomas asked all Americans to rediscover the courage and conviction that our Founders possessed. "In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs," he said.

That future has lasted in pretty stable form for nearly 250 years. But it has serious problems today, presented by those who do not understand our system, or who do not appreciate it.

It is interesting that as a unique system of government that has proven its worth for two and a half centuries, so many of those who live in this country and benefit from it, want to change it to something that has been proven to be a failed system over those same 250 years.

If the progressives are successful in their effort to subvert our constitutional republic, they may not live long enough to suffer the consequences of that subversion, as it will take some time to totally ruin the country. But their children and grandchildren most certainly will.

Politics should never be part of decisions on legal matters

February 24, 2026

The term “originalism” refers to the idea that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was created and adopted. And therefore, an “originalist” is someone who understands the logic of this position and who accepts it.

The contrary position held by many is that the Constitution is a “living document,” which means that what the Founders thought 250 years ago is meaningless today, and the Constitution should be interpreted today using concepts that are “more modern,” even if they are actually contrary to the original meaning.

Under this way of thinking the right of free speech could be interpreted as meaning not that we are free to say a broad array of things, but that we can only say what the controlling individuals allow us to say, however limited that may be.

That mentality is like believing the Constitution is merely an ancient guideline, sort of like a drawing of the design of a house that can be altered to suit the desires of the owner.

But that concept is both foolish and dangerous. It’s like believing that the commandment “thou shalt not steal” really contains an unwritten phrase: “unless you want to.”

When the Constitution and laws are viewed under this foolish concept, it is referred to as “judicial activism.” Every law and constitutional ideal changes with the tide of human preference. That is like being on the ocean in a boat with no motor, sails, or oars, and being completely at the mercy of the weather and the water.

Originalism prevents activist interpretation of the Constitution’s concepts, and establishes standards our Founders intended to last forever, or at least until they are changed by appropriate methods, such as through acts of Congress supported by a substantial majority of the people.

An area where there is great difference on meaning is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That language seems fairly clear. But some disagree, and try to alter the meaning to help achieve their goals. However, if the original language is not clear enough, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 may help. It defines the Amendment’s meaning as an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, and other similar things.

Contrarians to the original context of the Amendment say that it does not say what types of Arms are covered and which ones are not. Of course. That is the salient point.

The Founders did not say that pistols are covered but rifles and cannons are not. They said “keep and bear Arms”: Meaning, all Arms. 

We have a wider variety of Arms/weapons around now than in the 1700s. Anti-gunners want to outlaw “assault rifles” — whatever those are, as no legal description exists — and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. They also want to outlaw automatic rifles and machine guns. Their argument is that the Founders would likely have not included these in the right to bear Arms, if they had existed in the 1700s. We will never know if that is true.

However, we must remember that our Founders were not worried about different types of guns, they were concerned about specific types of government. One type of government they meticulously avoided was a pure democracy, because of the danger of that type of government to become tyrannical, where 51 percent of the people could vote to jail or kill the other 49 percent.

And while some of today’s weapons can be more of a problem than the others, the imperative question remains: Why should law-abiding citizens be forbidden from owning them if they want them? 

Many states have gun laws, and some of those laws are very restrictive. Yet, in some of these states, gun crimes are commonly committed, anyway. It isn’t the guns that are the problem, it is the persons who have the guns, often illegally, that is the problem. Many law-abiding citizens own one or more guns. Neither the person or his or her guns have committed crimes.

Instead of interfering with the constitutionally guaranteed rights by limiting or outlawing gun ownership, we instead need to work very hard to teach people from a very young age about right and wrong, and being a good citizen. Discourage crime through high standards, strict adherence, and severe/harsh punishment for disobeying those standards and the laws that they have produced.

Teaching our young people how to be a good human being is a critical factor, one that has been ignored much too often in recent years. The nuclear family has fallen drastically in practice, and our education system is infected with many people who are interested in pushing their preferred political ideals more than presenting approved subject matter.

Consequently, the sense of proper behavior, and understanding and appreciating our system of government are well below the acceptable level. But it is not too late to begin restoring these concepts to where they should be.

The meaning of laws or the Constitution should not be changed on a whim

June 4, 2024

Why is it that those on the left — liberals, socialists, Marxists, “progressives” — think that the ideas expressed in our laws and the Constitution are just suggestions, and their interpretation by judges and others in positions of authority can vary with the wind?

Do they really believe that words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any given time as political fervor and social preferences dictate? 

Well, yes, many of them believe that whatever their political motivation is at any moment is enough to justify changing the meaning of a law or a feature of our Constitution that was written years, decades, or even centuries ago.

Those written words were just ideas of the moment, they suggest, and everyone knows that ideas and circumstances change as time progresses. Therefore, the meaning of laws and the Constitution must be flexible enough to be understood as they want to understand them at any point in time.

And they want to get rid of anyone in any position who believes the contrary: that laws and the Constitution mean what they meant when they were created, and will continue to hold that meaning until they are properly changed by the appropriate processes.

In order to get the world organized to their liking, the leftists want to remove anyone from their official position that doesn’t follow the popular ideological line. Supreme Court Justices, for example, who follow the law and Constitution as written. They are “originalists,” or “judicial conservatives.”

Like umpires and referees, judges, justices, magistrates, etc., must not take sides in their work. They must not change the rules of the game during the game. They have the duty to apply the laws and terms of the Constitution as they were intended when created, without applying political or ideological bias. 

That point is frequently missed by some observers who instead want their personal beliefs to prevail in such matters, despite what the intent of the measure in question may be.

But the interpretations of our Constitution and existing law must be based upon the circumstances that prevailed at the time they were created, and that those circumstances were why these laws and Constitutional provisions were created to begin with.

If the original circumstances that were the basis of a law or a feature of the Constitution no longer exist, if things have changed substantially, then the law can be repealed, or the Constitution can be amended as needed. But until those actions take place, the laws and Constitution must be followed as written, and as intended. The leftists prefer to consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” the meanings of which ebb and flow with the tide of time.

This concept was dealt with in an article by United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch titled, “Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution.” 

In this article, he addresses some specific instances. However, we will focus on the primary meaning: “Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies.”

“Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.”

And then, the crux of the debate: “Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.”

And he then describes the leftists’ preferred solution to the disagreement: “For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.”

In common parlance, they want the documents to say whatever they prefer them to say at any given moment. And those meanings can change with a new breath.

“Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what,” Gorsuch asks? “The ‘judicial Power’ of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people.

“But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those ‘bad’ results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be? Regardless of who benefits today — the criminal or the police; the business or the employee; immigrants or ICE?”

Originalism focuses on process, not substance. The originalist concept protects the country from renegade “jurists” who will do whatever improves their political/ideological position. This is not what America is about.

Our Founders would be proud of the Court’s recent decisions

July 4, 2023

The U.S Supreme Court did its job quite well last week. In three notable cases, the Court did exactly what it was designed to do: it ruled according to the language and the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

In the case ending affirmative action in higher education, it ruled that affirmative action, the measure which for decades was used to end discrimination, was itself discriminatory, and therefore unconstitutional.

In the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis a graphic designer refused to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple, due to her religious beliefs. However, her refusal was in breach of Colorado’s discrimination law. But the Court upheld the designer’s free speech rights and religious beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

And in the case where President Joe Biden tried to make the taxpayers bailout people with outstanding student loan debt through an Executive Order, thereby bypassing Congress, the Court again properly ruled that the president of the United States does not have the Constitutional authority to do that. 

Interestingly, some years ago, before he was President, Biden publicly said that the action he later took was not Constitutional. That sentiment was also expressed by Nancy Pelosi, when she was the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2021.

And, predictably, the liberal’s reaction to these rulings is both strong and off the mark. Some of them probably do understand why the Court, doing the right thing, ruled as it did. Others are going to complain, despite that reality.

Contrary to the idea that many people have, the Supreme Court’s job is not to make Biden or Trump, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, or any group happy with its rulings. 

Its job is not to make decisions that are politically based, or to reinterpret the Constitution or laws to make a ruling that is more likeable or pleasing to anyone. Its job is to correctly interpret the Constitution and the laws of the country.

And that is what the justices who are judicial conservatives did. And the liberal justices opposed them with their votes, which also opposed the meaning of the Constitution.

While Biden’s attempt on the student loan bailout would have made thousands of people very happy, allowing that to happen would be allowing the President to exercise powers that are reserved for the Congress. Fortunately, the proper understanding of the Constitution’s tripartite federal government held by the judicial conservatives on the Court, led to the correct ruling in the case.

A very timely and effective look at the difference between judicial conservatism and judicial liberalism occurred in the opposing positions on the affirmative action ruling. And the two sides are represented by black/African-American Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Jackson is the newest member of the Court, taking her seat this year. When asked during her confirmation hearing by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, to define the word "woman," she replied, “I can’t.” Shortly after that, she added, “not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”

And her dissent on the affirmative action ruling said this: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that [the University of North Carolina] and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.

“No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today's ruling makes things worse, not better,” she continued.

Thomas, on the other hand, took a vastly different view in his concurring opinion. “The solution to our Nation’s racial problems thus cannot come from policies grounded in affirmative action or some other conception of equity,” he wrote. “Racialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism. Instead, the solution announced in the second founding is incorporated in our Constitution: that we are all equal, and should be treated equally before the law without regard to our race. Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors.”

Jackson’s argument focuses not on the constitutionality of the discrimination favoring one race over others, which was the question before the Court. Her argument focuses on her concept of racism and whether or not it is important.

This is a common mis-focus of the liberal justices: social justice, not justice by law. They argue for social justice, even if in doing so the principles of the Constitution are ignored or trampled on.

Our founders created a brilliant Constitution, and made a special point of guaranteeing certain rights, without which rights a free nation cannot exist. We must always honor those guarantees, even if doing that is inconvenient for some of us.

Democrats are upset by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

“Conservative” justices are not political conservatives. They are Constitutional conservatives, originalists. The conservative view of the Constitution is that it means today and forever what it meant to the Framers when they wrote the Constitution.

Liberal/activist justices do not view the Constitution the same way as the originalists. They see the Constitution as a “living” document, the meaning of which changes with time and our culture.

This essentially means that we don’t really have a Constitution if its meaning can be determined differently at any time, depending upon the views of nine unelected justices.

The late and brilliant Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia had it right: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

If the principles of the Constitution should ever turn out to be wrong, or hurtful, it can be changed through a process of amending it. But it should not — must not — be ignored or changed with the fickle winds of social “needs” or “wants.” The faithful allegiance of the conservatives/originalists is the great obstacle the left cannot conquer.

What so many do not understand, or prefer to ignore, is that what the Supreme Court did regarding Roe v. Wade was merely to undo a previous wrong action by the Court. It did not deny women a Constitutional right. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the right to due process are among those specifically mentioned in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. But the word “abortion” does not appear in the document, and stretching the meaning of privacy to include abortion was a gross error 49 years ago.

The Court’s action simply returned the decision about if there can be legal abortions and what the rules are regarding abortion to the states, where it belongs.

The concept of federalism, upon which the United States of America is based, holds that the states have certain authority over how they do things, and are not always at the mercy of the federal government. Laws on abortion, if there are such laws, belong in the states, not the federal government.

The radicals among the Democrats and liberals are ready to totally rebuild the United States so that their un-American ideas can become the norm.

They want to do crazy things to shove their ideas down the throats of every American. Such things as:

* Packing the Supreme Court with activist/liberal justices so that they can push their ideas through the legal system 

* Getting rid of the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority so that their majority can easily have its way 

* Making the District of Columbia and/or Puerto Rico a state, so that they will have additional electoral power; 

* And even trashing the Electoral College, which protects the smaller and less populated states against the tyranny of a few states with large populations

These are some of their radical solutions to their inability to convince a majority of Americans to support those ideas.

Two recent decisions by the Court last Thursday provided fodder for more Court criticizing, one on the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and the other on the EPA’s actions.

The latter focuses on the fundamental structure of our government as established in the Constitution. That structure established three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each one has its specific function, and the Constitution imposes a separation of powers, meaning that each branch must not stray into the given area of another branch.

The legislative branch makes the nation’s laws. The executive branch has the power to enforce or carry out those laws. The judicial branch has the power to apply and interpret the laws.

In recent decades the departments of the executive branch have taken on power, making rules with the power of law. But laws are to be made by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The EPA ruling puts the brakes on the executive branch’s straying into the legislative branch’s area.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent from the majority opinion, paints a picture of environmental catastrophe if the EPA is not allowed to continue its growing control of things that produce pollution.

Accusing the conservative/originalist justices of making themselves the "decision maker on climate policy," she wrote, "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."

Well of course not. The justices are not supposed to know about climate change, or any other such topic. They are supposed to know about and rule on laws and the Constitution.

How wonderful and helpful it would be if people would understand that our government is never going to do only those things that everyone agrees on, because there is little or nothing that everyone agrees on. The government is charged to do things that benefit the people as a whole, not any specific segment.

How nice it would be if we all understood what a wonderful, if imperfect, place America is, and how fortunate we all are to be able to live here.

Having a “living” Constitution is having no Constitution

One of the serious challenges to America’s future is the tendency to interpret the U.S. Constitution and our laws liberally. That is, to understand something written years, decades or centuries ago using the current fluid understanding of how things “ought to be.” 

This concept of a “living” Constitution completely discards the reasoning that occurred when the document was created, and substitutes today’s “preferences” for the principles as understood, intended and written.

Strict interpretation of the language of the Constitution, interpreted through knowledge of how things were during the creation of the document and how the Founders thought, is essential to the nation keeping the magnificent principles with which it was designed. This is known as “originalism,” or maintaining the original intent of the Constitution and laws.

A good example of why that is important is in the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There are two elements under debate, the first being the meaning of the term “militia.” Today, the term often applies to formal military organizations similar to the National Guard. Thus, the anti-Second Amendment folks suggest that only such organizations are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. But when the Constitution was being written, the militia consisted of private citizens who could be called together to act in defense against an attack. It was not the army, nor even a formal organization. 

The other issue is that the anti-Second Amendment folks say it does not give anyone the right to own any weapon they want. People often say that the Founders had no way to imagine the existence of so-called “assault weapons.” And that is true. However, the Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. There are two different concepts: Keeping arms means to own and have arms, while bearing arms means they may be carried by the people.

It also does not distinguish between the types of arms people may keep and bear. There were knives and swords, etc., and there were hand-held muskets, long rifles, and cannons. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say to keep and bear muskets and swords, it says to keep and bear arms, meaning whatever arms were available. People were not prohibited from owning a cannon if they chose, to drag it along behind them or tie it to their horse if they wanted. Muskets, long rifles and cannons were the “assault weapons” of their time, and they were precisely what the Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and to bear.

They also try to persuade us that the purpose was to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for hunting and home defense, but the main threat generating this right was the potential for a threat from an armed enemy, foreign or domestic.

The idea of a “living Constitution” essentially renders the Constitution to mean what a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices says it means at any given time. Today, it may mean something, and next year it may mean something else. That, of course, means the Constitution means nothing, if what it means is subject to the aspirations of a few people at any given time.

The Founders were smart guys. They had seen various types of government be tried, and fall short. Sometimes falling very short. So, they devised a different idea. And the document designed to govern this nation was comprised of broad principles, one of which was great personal freedom, which would last in perpetuity.

Those principles may not be changed on a whim, or because one or more people in a position of power decides to change one or more of the principles.

Thus, if sufficient reasoning and support for changing some portion of the Constitution exists, there is a process for doing that, and that process involves much more than the personal opinions of jurists. The Constitution may be amended, but through a rigorous process.

The National Archives describes this process: “The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.”

This process was designed to be a difficult one, in order to prevent quirky, impulsive changes to suit some circumstance, which may be fleeting, and change after a time. It was designed to prevent what too many justices of the United States Supreme Court and judges like to do: make law and change the Constitution from the bench.

Under this process, the Constitution will remain what it was designed to be: a standard for the nation that does not change with the tide or the direction and speed of the wind, unless there is a good reason for it and a substantial amount of support for it.

Politics control the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee brings to the fore several issues. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2021. Prior to that, she was a district judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014.

She is expected to be confirmed by the Democrat majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate, maintaining the current liberal and conservative numbers on the Court.

She has been criticized for her record of letting sex offenders off with sentences well below the recommendations of prosecutors and sentencing guidelines. She defended her actions in the confirmation hearing. That prompted Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall to comment that such actions raise concerns about her being soft on crime. 

She refused to answer the simple question from Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, of what is the definition of the word “woman?” Jackson said that she could not define the term. “You can’t,” Blackburn asked? “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said. 

The same Democrats who so enthusiastically defend this African American woman’s nomination opposed another African American woman nominee several years ago.

Jackson refused to condemn the radical idea of packing the Court to establish an ideological or political majority. Some Supreme Court Justices and other officials have condemned this as dangerous to the ideal of justice, because of the political influence it would inject into judicial matters.

She has embraced radical philosophies, like critical race theory. She was asked about it by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX: “Do you think that’s an accurate way of viewing society and the world we live in?”

“Senator, I don’t think so, but I’ve never studied critical race theory, and I’ve never used it,” Jackson responded.

Cruz then said, “you gave a speech in April of 2015 at the University of Chicago in which you described the job you do as a judge.” Cruz then quoted part of her speech: “Sentencing is just plain interesting … because it melds together myriad types of law, criminal law, of course … constitutional law, critical race theory.”

Among those issues is also the controversial one of judicial philosophy, which appears to be a factor in some of the issues noted previously. Jackson appears to be an activist judge, not an originalist. Judicial activism is a dangerous thing for the law and for America.

What is judicial activism? “Judicial activism occurs when judges abandon their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and instead decide cases to advance their preferred policies,” according to the Britannica website.

The other side of that is the conservative, or originalist, philosophy. Originalism holds that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written and passed. If there are good reasons to change some things, it must be done through amendments, not by the actions of judges.

The 11th Chief Justice of the United States, from 1930 to 1941, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, offered the idea that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

This statement is absurd on its face. If words mean only what the reader thinks they mean, or what he or she wants them to mean, the world would turn upside-down.

The Framers of the Constitution carefully wrote that document to address important concepts. They are broad principles. They were not written based upon the minute details of that time, but intended to last into the future. 

If the originalist interpretation leads to unpopular or undesirable things, then the Constitution can be properly amended, but not subjected to the whims of a judge, or a majority of five or more of the nine unelected justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas addressed this question in a 1996 speech. “The Constitution means not what the Court says it does but what the delegates at Philadelphia and at the state ratification conventions understood it to mean ... We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution.”

Despite the fact that Judge Jackson’s supporters condemn how she was questioned, the questions were perfectly acceptable, and many even necessary in a confirmation hearing for such an important post. 

Further, when compared to the horrid and disgraceful treatment by Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Jackson is getting respectful treatment.

And Justice Thomas was also treated contemptibly during his confirmation hearing. Part of his response to his disgusting treatment was, “it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves…”

We need justices and judges on the federal bench who understand and respect the broad and sensible principles stated in the Constitution and will adhere to them, rather than supplant them with personal or political ideals. Judge Jackson falls short of this standard.

However, in today’s highly political atmosphere, such ideals will not carry the day.