As if this comes as a surprise to anyone, Amy Barrett, who’s a favorite in the race for Justice Ginsburg’s seat, has implied that she opposes the landmark 2007 decision Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency, which gave the federal government the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
This is a likely a product of Barrett’s professed originalism, i.e., the assertion that all statements contained in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors at the time it was ratified. What did James Madison think about regulations affecting climate change mitigation? If you’re an originalist, you believe that, since he didn’t have any, the federal government has no right to write laws in this arena. If course, this is like saying we should use a blacksmith’s hammer and tongs to land the Rover on the surface of Mars, but these people seem not to understand that.
I think originalists are disingenuous. I don’t believe anyone smart enough to rise to the the level of the SCOTUS is stupid enough to miss the logic in what I wrote above, and I think that originalism is simply an artifice to justify a radical conservative ideology, and to prevent progress in American society.