A reader has called to my attention this Boston Globe editorial opposing Alito’s confirmation. The quality of the editorial’s reasoning is reflected in this passage, which has a cartoonish (or should one say moronic?) misunderstanding of what originalism is:

Alito declared his overarching constitutional philosophy of originalism: a strict adherence to the actual written text. In deciding court opinions, he said, ”We should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption.” Given that, at the time of its adoption, women could not vote and slaves were considered three-fifths of a person, such a philosophy is outdated, to say the least.

Note to Boston Globe: Originalists do not look only to the original Constitution. They look to the original meaning of all the provisions of the Constitution, including those amendments that abolished slavery, guaranteed “the equal protection of the laws,” and provided voting rights to women. That you evidently don’t understand this — or the fact that it was pro-slavery interests that would have preferred to count slaves fully (rather than as 3/5) for purposes of apportionment of House of Representatives seats and electoral-college votes – is a compelling reason why no intelligent person should pay any attention to your opinion on this matter.

Not incidentally, the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times Company and has a long history of sycophantic service to Teddy Kennedy.