SHOP
Watch LIVE
Cosmopolitan magazine, which is known for its relationship and sex advice articles, sparked a bit of controversy online Tuesday when they published an article slamming constitutional originalism.
The article was published amid the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Neil Gorsuch, who is President Donald Trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The article was titled: "9 Reasons Constitutional Originalism is Bullsh*t."
9 Reasons Constitutional Originalism Is Bullsh*t https://t.co/c9glcAtp8g https://t.co/mDoDxjuOQh— Cosmopolitan (@Cosmopolitan) 1490117421.0
The article said that judges who interpret the Constitution in an originalist fashion — in other words, in a manner that considers what the authors of the Constitution meant at the time they wrote it to be authoritative — are radical, racist and just completely wrong because "not even the founders were originalists."
"Instead, [originalism is just a] rational-sounding cover for a more insidious set of right-wing beliefs, a way to allow rampant discrimination against actual people while protecting the interests of corporate 'persons' and promoting the extreme ideologies of lobby groups," the article said.
Meanwhile, the article almost completely undermines itself at the end when it declares: "Of course the Constitution should be interpreted as it’s written."
Needless to say, Twitter had a field day with the article. Here are some of the best tweets:
Oh, thanks for clearing that up Jill https://t.co/7ygHGHzQSC— Stephen L. Miller (@Stephen L. Miller) 1490123698.0
oh wait no there it is. popup on cosmo constitutional law story https://t.co/x8SVq1EYSE— Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair 🦥 (@Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair 🦥) 1490121903.0
I always consult Cosmo before forming an opinion on matters of legal philosophy https://t.co/uGeSRkw6aO— Matt Walsh (@Matt Walsh) 1490121057.0
When i think of a go-to place for constitutional history, i think of Cosmopolitan -- said by no one ever https://t.co/uWKuItMqsK— Matt Vespa (@Matt Vespa) 1490143550.0
Stick to "Best Sex Ever" think pieces. https://t.co/psd0xgqe47— David Edward™ (@David Edward™) 1490122118.0
@Cosmopolitan Just keep writing articles on 'How to give the perfect blowjob'
— FlipFlops&Socks (@NevermindtheNah) March 21, 2017
@Cosmopolitan please, stop writing.
you aren't good at it.
find a different pursuit.
— PFZ (@PantsFreeZone) March 21, 2017
@Cosmopolitan is this before or after 60 best sex tips?
— INGSOC (@Desmatosuchus) March 21, 2017
The article was also widely trashed for originally claiming that at the time the Constitution was written — the late 18th century — handguns didn't exist. But they did:
.@JillFilipovic: Can you explain? "Nor, of course, did handguns exist in the 18th century" https://t.co/9HNNiPNjD4… https://t.co/fCWEmBevQU— jerylbier (@jerylbier) 1490123009.0
This is why you don't get your constitutional theory from @Cosmopolitan. Hand guns ABSOLUTELY existed in the 18th Century. #GorsuchHearing pic.twitter.com/iZxzCwGsYm
— Bryan Jacoutot (@BryanJacoutot) March 21, 2017
The article was later updated to say that modern semi-automatic handguns weren't yet invented in the late 18th century.
(Featured image via Steven Depolo/Flickr used under the creative commons license.)
