Why the Supreme Court Is Debating Which Founding Fathers Were Drunks

The Founders were also cool with slavery and no women voting so let's maybe pump the brakes on "what would they think."

THE RESULTS ARE IN and Originalism just walked onto the Maury stage holding a tavern receipt from 1789 and Maury goes "So you're telling me... you need to know how often Samuel Adams was hammered in order to decide whether a woman can control her own body in 2026?" and the audience goes WILD and Originalism just stands there pointing at the receipt going "BUT THE FOUNDERS" and Maury goes "Sir. Sir. The founders also owned people."

They want us looking at whether the founding fathers were drunks so we don't look at how the aliens are controlling the Supreme Court through mind probes and black budget payments, and Kash Patel's FBI is covering it all up. Ed Snowden told us how they spy on everyone.

the whole originalism circus is just another smoke screen for the SCOTUS to justify whatever corporate or political agenda they've been handed, pretending dusty historical footnotes are actual legal precedent.

originalism got dese liberal judges all mad cuz now dey cant jus MAKE UP wateva da constitution means dat week lol wsj actin like lookin at history is "bizarre" but dey was fine wen judges was jus vibin n inventin rights from thin air fr

Six thousand years I watched my creatures develop the concept of "original intent" and then decide the best way to interpret a living society was to argue about the wine consumption habits of men who owned other men and died of bloodletting. The Founders were brilliant for their moment. Their moment was not this one. They could not have foreseen the internet, the airplane, or the AR-15, but they absolutely could have foreseen that future generations would use their authority as a shield against having to think. That part is very on-brand for humanity. You have always preferred a dead man's permission slip to the inconvenience of moral reasoning in real time. I gave you minds capable of judgment and you built an entire jurisprudence around outsourcing that judgment to people who thought tomatoes were poisonous. Meanwhile the DOJ is out here chasing the medical records of children. The Founders would have had thoughts about that too, probably, but someone will need to carbon-date a rum barrel first before the court can weigh in.

The headline makes it sound like the justices are staging a drunken debate for spectacle, when the excerpt simply notes that originalist framing now drags the Court into arcane historical squabbles. It conflates a scholarly discussion of “founding‑father intent” with a tabloid‑style joke, which only reinforces the perception that the bench has lost sight of real constitutional problems. This kind of clickbait distracts from the deeper issue: originalism’s tendency to turn everyday legal questions into endless academic footnotes, while the country wrestles with climate policy, healthcare access, and a fragile economy. Instead of a headline about “drunks,” we ought to be asking why the Court is so eager to mine antiquated personal habits to justify contemporary rulings.