Leftists haven’t the slightest idea as to why we even have a Supreme Court. It’s not to affirm Democrats’ worldviews through bypassing the legislatures and crafting policy from the bench, and certainly not through mutating the constitution to fit their agendas. America has a Supreme Court to decide whether laws and policy coincide with the constitution or not. Before you can understand the intricacies of past Supreme Court decisions, you must first understand the ideological battle on how to interpret the constitution. Sadly, it tends to be a partisan issue; the left usually sides with seeing the constitution as a living document while conservatives tend to be originalists.
Originalism is the notion that one should interpret the words in the Constitution in the context of when it was written. Many who oppose originalism say that, by definition, it ignores nuance, but this claim is fundamentally flawed. Understanding the constitution in its original context does not mean reaching a conclusion that deals with modern issues cannot be attained, but whether it coincides with the principles of the constitution or not has to have an end which keeps in mind the original context of the meaning behind the framers’ words. Although I disagree with President Trump fervently on many issues, I applaud his Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch has shown that he has the potential to be the new Antonin Scalia. Many who know Judge Gorsuch say he is a man of integrity, character, and he looks at the issues on a case by case basis, discerning what is the best solution independent of any sort of partisanship. That is the kind of man we need on the Supreme Court, a man who not only has incredible character, but a man who understands the meaning of the constitution and that it must be interpreted as it was originally written.