Markey: “Originalism Is Racist . . . Sexist . . . Homophobic”

We have previously discussed how senators crossed a critical line in the Barrett nomination in declaring that the conservative’s judicial philosophy makes her “unqualified” — the abandonment of decades of tradition where members separated the qualifications from the philosophy of a nominee. That dangerous shift was particularly evident yesterday when Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., called originalism “racist, sexist, homophobic and a fancy word for discrimination.”

Markey declared on Twitter on Twitter that “Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.”

Markey’s comments are deeply insulting to the many citizens, judges, and professors who hold originalist views.  It is further evidence of the creeping irrationality in this age of rage where it is not enough to disagree with others on legal questions. You must now label those with differing views as racists or bigots.  Sen. Mike Lee was right to call upon Markey to withdraw his comments but such civility and such responsibility is now a distant memory in American politics.

228 thoughts on “Markey: “Originalism Is Racist . . . Sexist . . . Homophobic””

  1. Wall street banksters lean left, dig Biden, he’s got the billionaire backing and they know who signs the checks for the financial sector!

    Democrat party leadership; consists of arrogant snobs and we see how their sycophants talk here every day, insulting the Trump voters as “ignorant” and “low income” etc

  2. Jonathan: You often make self-contradictory assertions in your columns–like this one where you claim “I am not an originalist” but then go on to defend originalism. You claim Sen. Ed Markey’s characterizations of originalism are “patently false”. Your original disclaimer rings hollow in light of the rest of you column. You say Senator Markey’s comments “are deeply insulting to the many citizens, judges, and professors who hold originalist views”. “Many” does not reflect reality. According to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal society that you and they supported now Justice Barrett, originalism is “very much in the minority in the legal academy and in the Courts”. Further, it’s doubtful your average “citizen” could even define originalism. It turns out the “many” is actually just a very small minority of legal scholars and jurists.

    In terms of our current concepts of democratic rights the Constitution is a racist document. Many of the framers considered slavery (racism) a “necessary evil” to borrow form Sen. Tom Cotton’s racist comment. So to ensure ratification they bowed to the demands of southern slave owning states. Article IV, Sec. II, Clause III, the infamous “Fugitive Slave Clause”, makes clear the federal government must assist slaveowners in reclaiming run-a-way slaves. This and other clauses make it clear the Constitution is a racist document. Now the reason originalism is distinctly a minority view is that its rigid conservative interpretation of the Constitution would prevent or roll back many of the hard fought rights most Americans have come to accept., e.g., the right of women to vote and control their own bodies, voting rights and the evolving recognition of LGBTQ civil rights, etc.

    Contrary to your assertion, originalism is not “based on democratic theories”. There is nothing “democratic” about restricting the rights of citizens to clean air and water, restricting the right to vote through voter suppression, restricting a woman’s right control her own body, restricting the right to health care, etc. All the democratic rights we enjoy will be in jeopardy when Justice Barret joins the Court and imposes her version of originalism.

    1. “evolving recognition of LGBTQ civil rights, …. originalism is not “based on democratic theories”. There is nothing “democratic”


      actually it struck down numerous democratically elected laws of the states. a handful of blackrobes decided they knew better!

  3. Can someone please round these people up and take them back to the insane asylum?

  4. Senator Markley is essentially correct.


    angry “conservatives” feigned outrage in 3…2…1…

  5. Strange that Mr. Markey is so ignorant of the Constitution. The House and Senate make the laws, the Judiciary decides their lawfulness acording to the Constitution. The Judiciary does not create law.

  6. Breaking News Headlines — Progressive News Network (Oct 28) – Philadelphia
    Mostly Peaceful Protesters Attacked by Police Following Racially Motivated Shooting of Unarmed Black Man Alleged by Police to Have Knife

    Tension Escalates as Police Interfere with Residents Recovering Essential Supplies from Local Businesses

    Philadelphia Attacks Are Latest in String of Violent Attacks by Law Enforcement

    Harris/Biden Campaign Issues Statement Calling for End to Police Violence

    FBI Investigating Incidents as Suspected Russian Election Meddling in Desperate Bid to Aid Trump

  7. So Markey and everyone who ever took an oath to uphold the constitution is now guilty of all those things according to Markey.
    The Trump Derangement Syndrome is leading to liberal insanity.

  8. The mainstream media presstitutes agree. White supremacists and Proud Boys are running amok, as usual. This time in the streets of Philadelphia.

  9. Mr. Markey: Sir, I am a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). As such I worked under color of law of the Constitution after having been administered the Constitutional oath, the same you One should have taken. Your comments did not seem to be uttered in error and by those comments, you do not appear to be honoring any true faith and are NOT defending the constitution, by those disrespectful comments. Frankly, you should know better than to be so loose with your sacred oath! Therefore sir, it seems you are in violation of your sworn duty to that Constitution. I believe it to be appropriate, that you should be considered for action from the Senate ethics committee or any other committee as appropriate.

    I may not be able to formally file such a complaint but I certainly know two in people in Texas who can.

    Alternatively, I respectfully request you issue a formal public apology, to the American people in general and specifically to the reasonable citizens of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, within a reasonable amount of time and retract those disrespectful statements.

    Otherwise, I assure you, I will take all actions within my power to find a way to have you properly investigated for possible dereliction of duty, failure to preserve, protect or defend the United States Constitution and and possibly having taken you oath for an evasive purpose, and conduct unbecoming of a US Senator. And to further ascertain the veracity of your oath as noted herein. It seems by your comments, you are unwilling to support, protect or defend the Constitution, unless it be interpreted to your own liking.

    You sir, by your remarks, are assaulting the meaning and intent of the Constitution and the American people by your disrespectful comments. Further, you seem to be encouraging disrespect by others for the document and it’s intent, understanding and meaning. Such behavior should be beneath a sitting United States Senator.

    Respectfully, I await your appropriate response in good time. Luke D. Woodward, Senior Special Agent, DHS/Homeland Security Investigations, (retired).

    1. Luke D Woodward is a long-winded bore whose name we’ve never seen. Funny how that goes; ‘Long-winded bores popping out of nowhere’. It’s a pattern involving ridiculous trolls who keep constantly posting with new, ridiculous names.

      1. Luke D Woodward is a long-winded bore

        Says the man who posts each day multiple text walls cribbed from the Sulzberger and Bezos birdcage liners.

      2. “ridiculous trolls who keep constantly posting with new, ridiculous names”

        Mr. Woodward clearly identified himself:

        Once again, you have demonstrated your complete lack of anything even approaching self-awareness, or basic intelligence.

        You post as “Anonymous”, you troll, and you bring nothing whatsoever to the table other than your vapid cut and paste DNC talking points.

        1. Rhodes you ‘are’ Woodward. It seems you’re more desperate than ever to get our attention.

      3. Anonymous: You may have never seen my name, because for 35 years, I quietly, solemnly served my country, domestically and internationally, protecting, defending the Constitution. By the way, why do you only post anonymously? I have always considered anonymous information as dubious at best and specious at worst. Are you afraid of people actually publicly knowing how you feel? If you ask me, you seem cut from the cloth of the grandiose Never Trumper, George Conway. At any rate, whoever you are I do hereby challenge you to a public debate concerning this matter, at a time a place to be determined. Are you up to it, or will you seek to only have “Impact” from the protection and spineless position of anonymity?

        1. Luke, I worked with law enforcement for many years. Don’t give me this crap about your ‘solemn’ devotion to the field. Only crackpots try to arrest people in public forums. And that’s essentially what you presumed to do. You’re just our idiot troll.

          1. Another spineless coward, listen spineless, working “With” law Enforcement is far from being in Law Enforcement. I would bet, that you surely ARE NOT law enforcement. And you sure as heck never arrested anyone that is apparent just from attitude. So as to law enforcement and arrest powers, let’s leave that to the experts, shall we spineless. Also, would you be so bold and such a pretentious ass, if you were standing in front of me where we can discuss in detail what I believe and why and I can defend myself and the Constitution! Show yourself so we can do this right, let’s go down a semi-level playing field.

          2. Luke, I worked with law enforcement for many years.

            Peter’s referring to his youth as a department store security guard in Chicago. He decamped to LA to spend his weekends here

            1. Tabby, I saw enough. And I spent enough time with cops to never want to be one.

              There are a lot of dreadful people out there and cops meet them all. For that reason I have alienated every liberal Facebook friend by defending cops.

              1. it’s easy to alienate people on FB. you’re better off if you dump it.

                twitter is a mob too

                if a person is a genuine person of good will, and there are true liberals and good Democrat voters out there, as there are good people of all stripes, they will not be too miffed by someone else’s legit opinion

                however is this not why so many of us post under nom de plumes here? whats the point of getting your relatives all peeved at you and so forth.
                therefore, I thank Turley for this forum and chance to interact with other valued partners in dialogue

              2. I have alienated every liberal Facebook friend by defending cops.

                Which tells you something about street-level Democrats.

      4. on the contrary, there is such a person and you only need look to google to easily find the hit. do some research before you insult other users, perhaps?

        1. Kurtz, you’re a lawyer. Does that sound like a real pro to you; ‘making bold pronouncements on a public forum’? And why is Rhodes the first responder to ‘authenticate’ Luke Woodward?

          1. well of course I cant authenticate him, I don’t know that linkedin person nor the poster, it is possible there is a misappropriated identity, but I find it unlikely.

            what is the motivation for someone to pick some guy out of a hat and fake a comment from him here?

            if you’re worried about it then send a message to the fellow at linkedin, and then he can show up and say his peace if it bothers him

          2. Anonymous, why do question my identity and thereby my opinions? You should be able to verify my situation very easily there. When you did the kind of work we did for years, you have a tendency to want to keep a low profile, for obvious reasons. But, fret not, rest assured I am exactly who I say that I am, with the exact credentials, experience, education etc. When you think about it, we should probably be trying to find consensus about such important matters for the sake of us all. I do have concerns about this kind of thing becoming more of an issue in future. We should all be ready to defend our country, culture and beliefs from anarchist, haters of America, and especially socialism and communism.

            Actually, I grow tired and weary of those who have had virtually free political, academic, broadcast and print media reign for nearly 80 years or more. They have sought to implement their communists agenda from within. They have been frighteningly successful, if you look at their list of 45 ways for Communist to bring down America as stated by them via introduction of the list into the Congressional Record which was done in 1963 by a Representative from the State of Florida. There is only one inescapable conclusion to be reached, the goal of the destruction of the America we know and love. The America we expect to be able to leave in good or better shape, for posterity and for the sake of those to come who will be known as Americans.

    2. Luke, how’s it going on your investigation of the Senate majority that willfully failed their constitutional duty to advise and consent on a presidential nomination for the Supreme Court. You know, in 2016.

      1. There was no ‘duty’ to confirm Barack Obama’s selections, except in your imagination. (They ‘advised’ him his selection is unacceptable).

        By the way, Harry Reid thought nothing of bottling up lower court nominations for periods measured in years (among them Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the DC Circuit). Your complaint in re Garland is another one of your frauds.

        1. The Senate GOP majority held no hearings and so did not “advise and consent” as is their constitutional duty. Nowhere are they given an option for avoiding this clearly spelled out requirement of their office. In fact, the Senate GOP members had previously praised and were part Garland’s approval for Circuit judge and so there opposition was not him but to Obama naming a judge, which of course was his constitutional right for which he had a mandate from the people.

          As to Reid, the constitution is explicit on the senate’s responsibility to advise and consent on SC justices, but not so on others, and the point of both GOP and Democratic resistance to other judicial appointments were previously about the nominees, not the President’s right to nominate.

          The court is broken. There are no rules anymore. Enjoy.

          1. The Senate GOP majority held no hearings and so did not “advise and consent” as is their constitutional duty

            There is no such ‘constitutional duty’ except in your imagination. Prior to 1933, Congress was not in session half the time.

          2. JF: “. . . not “advise and consent” as is their constitutional duty.”

            You keep playing that false tune.

            The fact is that since the 19th century, there have been at least 10 “no action” SC nominees, and a number of others where the Senate stalled. No action/stalling is a type of advising, and is often a form of face-saving for the president.

            More importantly, you’re grossly misreading the Appointments Clause. There is nothing in the Clause that compels the Senate to advise and consent. What it states is that the president cannot appoint judges, et al. without the Senate’s advise and consent.

            There’s a world of difference between: “You cannot go to the store without my consent.” And: “You must go to the store.”

            1. Sam. previous “no action” SC nominees were in opposition to the nominee, not the right of the president to place a nominee. Garland had been easily confirmed for his circuit court judgeship and with the actual praise of numerous GOP senators, so he was not the problem. Allowing Obama to place a nominee was the “problem” and resulted in stealing the court majority over the last 4 years from the majority of American voters and giving it to the minority who have won only 1 presidential election in the last 7. Not by conspiracy – the stealing of that seat was a conspiracy – but by random BS in the EC, we now have a court where the majority of justices were appointed by Presidents rejected at the polls. The court is illegitimate and made worse by the Garland episode and the seating of Barrett.

              Here’s the constitution on this. Please tell me where you think the Senate has an option to disobey the clear responsibility vested in them:

              “and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

            2. Good post Sam. BytheBook (Joe Friday) is fully aware of what the Senate’s responsibility is. His complaint is not unlike the whiny teenager that stomps his feet and cries to his parents when they ignore his request to take the car. After all, he took driver’s ed, passed the written and behind-the-wheel test and has his shiny new license. His parents even added him on their insurance. He now believes he’s met all the requirements to get fair consideration from his parents and their consent. Of course this man-child isn’t interested in earning the trust of his parents anymore than the Democrats are interested in the constitution and separation of powers. He steal the keys and take the car anyway and Democrats will pack the court.

  10. x3 has such a little mind, as do so many of the commenters here @ Jonathan Turley’s.

    1. So, your idea of not having a “little mind” is a lazy self-indulgent ad hominem attack with no substance whatsoever?

  11. There is nothing wrong with a Senator opposing a nominee based on judicial philosophy so I disagree with a premise of the blog.

    1. Opposition is fine , but, justifying your opposition by calling another’s judicial philosophy racist etc. is NOT fine !

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: