SCOTUS OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE; NOW OVERTURN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

SCOTUS OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE; NOW OVERTURN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

I will say this in my breathy, Marilyn Monroe-Dr. Gina Loudon, known as "Dr. G," voice, "We are all originalists, now!" What is an originalist? Justice Antonin Scalia was a leading proponent of originalism, a judicial philosophy holding that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on the "original meaning" of its words at the time of their adoption, rather than evolving with modern society. Scalia believed this "dead" (or "enduring") Constitution constrained judges, ensuring law reflects the public understanding of 1789 or 1868 rather than current court preferences. Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas,  Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are likened. Since Brown v. Board of Education, originalism has become the bane of the Radical Left. Drawing on the insights of H. L. A. Hart’s legal positivism, original law originalism locates the authority of the Constitution in the social facts of the American legal system. Championed by legal scholars Stephen Sachs and William Baude, this theory posits that the "original law" of the Constitution—the legal rules and standards in force at the time of its enactment—remains binding today unless lawfully changed (e.g., by amendment). Unlike original public meaning originalism, which focuses on the communicative content or "linguistic meaning" of the text to an ordinary citizen, original law originalism focuses on the "legal meaning" or the specific legal rules the text invoked for lawyers and judges at the time (which may or may not include its original public meaning). According to Calvin Terbeek, originalism's appeal in modern times is rooted in conservative political resistance to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision and opposition to some civil rights legislation. 

Sam Ervin was an early proponent of originalism as he used the theory to argue in opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s. Ervin aggressively opposed civil rights legislation in his first decade in office. While a leading segregationist, he later gained national fame as a champion of civil liberties, chairing the 1973–1974 Senate Watergate Committee. Ervin was a a North Carolina Democrat. Ervin was a Southern Democrat and staunch constitutional originalist known for opposing what he considered radical or overreaching liberal policies, particularly in the realms of federal authority, civil rights, and social programs. While he was celebrated as a champion of civil liberties, his opposition to the "radical left" was rooted in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which led him to oppose federal civil rights legislation, advocate for states' rights, and condemn what he viewed as the "socialistic" direction of certain Democratic policies.

Opposition to Civil Rights Legislation: Ervin was a leader in the Southern resistance to federal civil rights laws during the 1950s and 60s, arguing that acts like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were unconstitutional and designed to give special rights to one group over others. He helped draft the 1956 Southern Manifesto, which opposed the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, viewing it as an example of judicial activism.

Key aspects of Sam Ervin’s opposition to the "left" include:

• Opposition to "Socialistic" Policies: In his later years, Ervin expressed frustration with the national Democratic Party, stating it needed to regain "sanity" and move away from liberal economic policies and expensive social programs. He argued that many such programs fostered laziness and were not constitutionally authorized.
• Constitutional Originalism vs. Activism: Ervin believed the Constitution should be interpreted as written by the Founding Fathers, and he was highly critical of liberal, activist judges who he believed were "making" law rather than interpreting it.
• Opposition to School Prayer Restrictions: While often aligned with liberals on civil liberties, Ervin opposed liberal efforts to pass constitutional amendments that would have allowed school prayer, arguing that the First Amendment already provided for freedom of religion and that such amendments would actually empower the state to interfere with religion. Justices Scalia, Coney Barrett, Thomas and Gorsuch describe themselves as originalists in scholarly writings and public speeches.

Ultimately, Ervin was an ideologically complex figure—a "constitutionalist" who fought against what he saw as the overreach of the Left (civil rights laws) and the Right (Nixon administration) alike.

The assertion that it is the "bane of the Radical Left" stems from its application by a conservative Supreme Court majority to overturn long-standing precedents on issues such as abortion rights, gun control, and federal regulatory power. Ruth Marcus' opinion piece "Originalism is bunk. Liberal lawyers shouldn’t fall for it.' writes, "Liberal lawyers — and liberal justices, for that matter — risk being caught in an originalism trap.

Originalism, the belief that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed at the time it was adopted, is the legal theory that dominates the thinking of this conservative Supreme Court. Not all of the conservative justices are committed originalists. I count four of the six — all but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and perhaps Samuel A. Alito Jr., who describes himself as a “practical originalist.” " Cass R Sunstein in "Originalism for Liberals" writes, "The Bill of Rights is especially valuable as an exercise in intellectual history; but the question is how well we can solve current problems in this way. In most serious constitutional disputes, the original sources leave gaps and uncertainties, and the outcome depends on policies or principles that should not be inconsistent with those sources but cannot be found there. It is important to be candid about those policies or principles-whether they turn out to be a commitment to precedent, a principle of judicial restraint, a background rule in favor of federalism, or a certain conception of equality or dignity. No less than the conservative originalist, the liberal originalist does not avoid the most serious problem with all who claim to have a fix on what the Constitution "really means," which is their unfortunate habit of invoking the text and the history of the Constitution when their own judgments and their own preferences are playing an inevitable role." Recent investigations into the associates of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have highlighted connections between him and several prominent figures, including legal scholar Sunstein. Sunstein serves as the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School. He was previously a professor at the University of Chicago Law School from 1981 to 2008. MAGA and the Radical Left, you might want to force him out of Harvard. Whoopie and Bondi would appreciate the nod.

Since, we are going down the road of originalism, shouting for joy all the way, let me say in my breathy, Marilyn Monroe-Dr. G. voice, "homosexual sodomy is not a “fundamental right”!" There is a genie that has led to the following LGBTQP+ accomplishmrnts: the striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act, gender affirming care for children, the U.S. pressesing for LGBT human rights around the world, "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" repealed, and Obergefell Et Al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, Et Al., 576 U. S. 2 ___ (2015) amongst many others. U.S. laws against sodomy focus on oral or anal sex. Though the laws generally prohibit the activities of both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples, the enforcement of such laws has often targeted homosexual sex between men. In 1960 every state had a law against sodomy. In the United States, all state-level sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which protected private, consensual, same-sex activity. However, public sexual acts, regardless of sexual orientation, are generally illegal under public indecency or public lewdness laws. As originalists, we hope that our SCOTUS justices look to the words of Founding Fathers in the official documents of the Land-the Bible, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. The Radical Left makes the thoughts of our justices irrational.  Victoria A. Brownworth of the Philadelphia Gay News wrote this scathing article, "George Washington: Gay-friendly father of our country". In it she urges SCOTUS, "Washington’s views on democracy, liberty and the codified “pursuit of happiness” that current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cited specifically in his ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overturned federal sodomy laws, were straightforward. Washington’s letters, diaries, military papers and conversations with friends and colleagues of his era were all succinct: He believed in freedom with discipline; he was left-leaning, but no anarchist. He looked the other way on matters that may have otherwise raised eyebrows when it was the pragmatic thing to do, as he would throughout his tenure as both military leader and leader of the nation." Brownworth continues, "Washington’s letters state that he was less than thrilled with marital life (“not much fire between the sheets”) and preferred the company of men — particularly the young Alexander Hamilton, whom he made his personal secretary — to that of women. His concern for his male colleagues clearly extended to their personal lives. This was especially true of Hamilton, whom he brought with him to Valley Forge, giving Hamilton a cabin to share with his then-lover, John Laurens, to whom Hamilton had written passionate love letters that are still extant." She continues, "Washington himself had married late for the time — at 28 — and to a wealthy widow, Martha Custis. They raised her two children from her first marriage, but had none of their own. Letters of Washington’s make clear that while he cared deeply for Martha and her children, there was no passion between them. Nor are there records of Washington’s dalliances with other women.

Washington’s passion was reserved for his work and the men with whom he served closely, notably Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette. When Hamilton was a young soldier — later to be made Secretary of the Treasury by Washington — he was engaged in relationships with other men, as love letters he sent during the Revolutionary War prove." 

She makes reference to Historian Kai Wright writing, "However, as historian Kai Wright notes in “Soldiers of Freedom,” the military was often far more advanced on social issues than civilian life and cites the desegregation of the military on race and gender as examples. Thus Washington’s laissez-faire attitude toward homosexuality at Valley Forge fits that construct. Washington was a gay-friendly pragmatist who put the importance of the revolutionary struggle above the concerns of civilian life.

The most succinct evidence for this was Washington’s clear “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it came to same-sex coupling among his regiments at Valley Forge." 

Kai Wright is an openly gay American journalist, author, and podcast host focused on the intersections of race, sex, and health. Known for hosting WNYC's Notes from America, he has written extensively on LGBTQ+ issues, including the HIV/AIDS crisis, queer youth, and the "down low" phenomenon.  Brownworth (February 1956 – May 22, 2025) was an American journalist, writer and editor. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, she wrote numerous award-winning articles about AIDS in women, children, and people of color. She was the first person in the United States to write a column about lesbianism in a daily newspaper. I am going to throw this out there, I believe that they may have had a bias that makes them sensational. This bias is the same that rules the Radical Left even amongst SCOTUS. 

Historical evidence regarding George Washington’s views on homosexuality is mixed and highly debated. While he officially upheld strict military discipline against "sodomy", some modern interpretations argue he showed pragmatism and tolerance toward close male aides and staff. 

Key Findings on Washington's Views and Actions:

• Official Discipline: As Commander-in-Chief, Washington oversaw the enforcement of Articles of War that prohibited and punished homosexuality within the Continental Army, including instances of soldiers being dismissed for "sodomy".
• Pragmatism and Aide-de-Camp: Despite official rules, Washington did not act against suspected homosexuals who were valuable to the cause. He brought Baron von Steuben, who had left Europe amid allegations of homosexuality, into his inner circle as a key strategist.
• Close Relationships: Some researchers suggest Washington held a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" attitude and was comfortable with close, passionate relationships between his aides, such as Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens.
• Debate on Personal Views: Some authors argue that Washington, in his personal letters and life, preferred the company of men and was more affectionate with them than his wife. Others argue that these intense, intimate friendships were typical of the 18th century and not evidence of modern sexual orientation. 

In summary, there is no direct, explicit quote or writing from George Washington on homosexuality, making it necessary to interpret his views based on his actions, which ranged from enforcing strict disciplinary rules to providing, in some interpretations, a "gay-friendly" environment for his closest associates. The key is "modern interpretation".

As for personal letters, they are not the building blocks of the Republic. Liberal justices have historically used documents like Thomas Jefferson's letters to define specific clauses, such as using his "wall of separation" metaphor for the Establishment Clause. Democrat Hugo Black, SCOTUS justice, used Thomas Jefferson's Danbury letter. In the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black popularized Thomas Jefferson’s "wall of separation" metaphor from an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Black used this phrase to establish that the First Amendment's religion clauses require a strict, "high and impregnable" separation between church and state, forbidding government aid to religion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrat, typically aligned with a more separationist, secular view of the First Amendment, often emphasizing the importance of government neutrality toward religion and protecting religious freedom for all, including minority faiths. 

Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), was inherited from British common law at the founding, establishing that individuals born within the sovereign's domain are citizens, regardless of parentage. While not explicitly defined in the original Constitution, this principle was understood, particularly concerning the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the presidency. In my humble opinion, a WRONG presumption. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently addressing various cases, including one that involves significant discussions about the Founding Fathers and their intentions regarding birthright citizenship. In the case Trump v. Barbara, upcoming rulings are expected to reference historical texts, including letters and writings from key Founding Fathers. Briefs filed in the case draw heavily from historical sources, including remarks from the Founding Fathers, asserting that citizenship should not be contingent on parental status but should relate to being born on the soil of the United States.

Examples of Founding Fathers' Perspectives

• George Washington expressed strong opposition to monarchy, which indirectly supports the concept of citizen rights.
• James Madison emphasized the importance of checks and balances to prevent overreach in power, relevant to the debate on the executive's role in establishing citizenship laws.
• John Adams articulated that the essence of a republic is founded on laws, not men, supporting the idea of consistent legal frameworks for citizenship.

The justices are likely to weigh these interpretations against modern implications for citizenship.

John Bingham of Ohio, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was the primary author and architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Often called the "Father of the 14th Amendment," Bingham drafted the language guaranteeing due process, equal protection, and citizenship, intending to ensure the Bill of Rights applied to states. Bingham aimed to overturn the Dred Scott decision, protect newly freed slaves, and federalize the Bill of Rights. Bingham, the primary author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, described it as a necessary tool to enforce the Bill of Rights against state abuses. In 1866, he famously stated the goal was to "arm the Congress of the United States... with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today". There is no right to birthright citizenship. Bingham said, "This Congress is doing important work that will be felt for generations to come; the Joint Committee on Reconstruction sent this early draft of the 14th Amendment to Congress because the committee thought that it was important to the safety of all Americans; this proposed amendment gives Congress the power to protect the key rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights against state abuses." The Founding Fathers did not establish modern, automatic birthright citizenship, but rather base citizenship on consent and allegiance, distinct from the British "subject" model. While no single "founder" quote defines it, they viewed citizenship as a social compact involving mutual consent between the individual and the government. Consent and allegiance. You have got to want to be an American and then be an American. The modern interpretation stems from the 14th Amendment, where Senator Jacob Howard stated that "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States," intended to include the children of freed slaves. The Founding Fathers defined citizenship based on consent and social compact rather than birthright (jus soli), emphasizing a voluntary allegiance to a republic. Key, they believed citizens needed to be informed, virtuous, and actively engaged in self-governance. While the original Constitution did not define it, it implied a distinction between citizens and subjects. Founders generally rejected the British doctrine of jus soli (citizenship by birth location), favoring a natural law approach where individuals choose their allegiance. The Founders were concerned with the influence of foreign nationals and initially placed restrictions on citizenship to ensure national security and prevent foreign interference.  The original Constitution did not formally define citizenship but recognized it, particularly in Article II, which required the president to be a "natural-born citizen". The Founding Fathers used "natural born" in Article II of the Constitution to mean someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth, requiring no naturalization proceedings later in life. Based on 18th-century common law, this generally includes individuals born within the United States (jus soli) or to American citizen parents (jus sanguinis). We are citizens by choice on the natural land. Born here, willing to fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I will say this in my breathy, Marilyn Monroe-Dr. Gina Loudon, known as "Dr. G," voice, "We are all originalists, now!"

Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that has become a dominant, yet often contested, force in American legal thought, particularly championed by conservative organizations like The Heritage Foundation. While historically associated with conservative jurists such as Scalia and Thomas, the approach—which emphasizes interpreting the Constitution based on its original public meaning at the time of ratification—has seen broader adoption, with even liberal justices sometimes engaging in "originalist" arguments.

Lee Strang, Professor of Law & Values, University of Toledo, in "Originalism and Conservatism: An American Story" summarizes, "Originalism and American conservatism have worked well together for the past 50 years. Their collaboration has restored some degree of faithfulness to our Constitution in our legal system and legal culture. It also has provided conservatism with a politically and sociologically attractive approach to constitutional interpretation that is fully compatible with the rule of law. While it may not be true in all times and places, in the United States, because of its distinct circumstances, originalism is a good match for conservatism."

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Scalia argued that the Supreme Court was overstepping its bounds, improperly overturning precedent (Bowers v. Hardwick), and aligning itself with a "liberal cultural elite". He maintained that the Constitution does not prohibit states from passing "morals legislation" to regulate sexual conduct. In the SCOTUS decision, it was determined that perversion was a fundamental right. Scalia wrote, "I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine." Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided," serving as a fundamental legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical precedents when ruling on similar cases. It ensures consistency, stability, and predictability in the judicial system by requiring lower courts to abide by established rulings of higher courts. It dictates that once a court has decided a legal issue, that decision governs future cases with similar facts. Based on historical consensus, the most heavily criticized Supreme Court decisions include Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which denied citizenship to Black people, and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld segregation. Other widely condemned rulings involved the incarceration of Japanese Americans. Can you imagine your case decision is based on Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson? Justice Robert H. Jackson: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final". We are not perfect but are the final word on the Constitution. If the final word, should the reference be the "words of the Constitution" and the thoughts of its Framers. Not a "living Constitution" but the Constiytution. Originalism and Living Constitution theories represent opposite approaches to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Originalism fixes meaning to the text's public understanding at ratification, promoting stability. Living constitutionalism argues the document evolves with societal values, allowing for adaptation. Originalism seeks constraint, while Living Constitutionalism favors flexibility.

Scalia beautifully argued, "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best." Consent of the governed rather than the tyranny of a few making interpretation.

The LGBTQ+ sought judicial intervention and imposition when they exhausted the consent of the governed. Scalia dissented, "One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal)." The strategy of seeking judicial intervention for LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in the United States, has been a core component of the movement's legal strategy for decades, often occurring in tandem with legislative efforts rather than solely after their exhaustion. While significant, high-profile victories (such as Obergefell v. Hodges for marriage equality and Bostock v. Clayton County for workplace discrimination) were secured through the courts, they followed decades of grassroots activism, changing public opinion, and, in many cases, state-level legislative battles.

Scalia concluded the Courts dissent with a 100 miles per hour fastball right over the plate. "The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent." It is time for SCOTUS to apologize to Scalia and the Nation and reconsider Lawrence v. Texas.

I will say this in my breathy, Marilyn Monroe-Dr. Gina Loudon, known as "Dr. G," voice, "We are all originalists, now!"