It seems to me, any President who appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is obviously not an originalist, is open and avowed treason and should be treated as such. The government gets its authority to govern from the Constitution, not the army, not the President, not from the courts or the bureaucracy, the foundation upon which our national government was built is our Constitution. Those who have the presumption to change the meaning of our foundational contract, do not value the founding or federalism, have far too much hubris to be allowed in charge of a McDonalds let alone safeguard our fundamental Rights. Therefore, anyone who would appoint such a person, knowing they are such a person, is openly and intentionally committing treason against the nation.
The one attribute that makes a king a king, an aristocrat an aristocrat, and a crime boss a crime boss, is some measure of being a sociopath. Cyrus the great was raised by sheepherders but when he played king with other children he ordered an aristocrat’s son seized and beaten. When the aristocrat told the king he was going to have the sheepherder and his family executed for it the king asked to see the child who had such impertinence. Because he was actually the king’s grandson he and his adopted family escaped execution, but it was his ability to hold others to a standard he was unwilling to accept for himself, that made him Cyrus the great. A king, kingpin or boss will execute another for something they do all the time. They hold themselves to no standard whatsoever but others to the highest standards. Constitutionalism changed all that.
Constitutionalism is an innovation of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was/is a transition in human understanding, where people stopped basing our conception of right in authority and instead base it on argument. Part of the new way was/is to try a new way to limit the power of government. Before the enlightenment, governments were monarchy, aristocracy or pure democracy rarely republican or in other words, a blending of the others. Those forms of government had in common a strong tendency to become authoritarian. Under the new ideas of the enlightenment, constitutionalism, instead of power deriving from authority it came from logical argument. The Constitution is that argument.
Our Constitution is a contract. A contract takes from both and gives to both parties. Imagine if you had a contract to supply widgets to a company, once you fulfilled your part they changed the contract, paying you less for them than the contract stipulated. Your contract would be violated. If one party changes the contract unilaterally, as in a Supreme court justice changing our Constitution to suit him or herself, the contract become null and void. Basically, when one party to a contract changes it without the consent of the other it is a form of fraud. Fraud, being a felony, is frowned upon by government when you or I do it. To appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, who will not interpret our Constitution as it was intended, is an attempt to change the contract, unilaterally, and is an attempt to commit fraud against the citizens of the nation.
A Constitution forms the basis of government. The contract between the governed and the government. Constitutions are the outcome of the argument of what government should be in a nation. It outlines the powers the people give to government for the social and civil tranquility. Powers not given to a government under a constitution are forbid to that government. That was the paradigm shift of constitutionalism. Before constitutionalism, the idea of limiting governmental power was almost unheard of, the sole limit on tyrannies was that eventually the people would become enraged and rise up, then only if the authoritarian became too extravagant. That old paradigm has led to much human suffering both in the tyranny and in the revolutions. In human history constitutionalism was a watershed event.
When a President puts someone on the Supreme Court that he or she knows will not interpret our Constitution as it was written and intended… they are committing the most heinous kind of fraud. Fraud against the people. That President, who seeks to unilaterally change the contract between the governed and the government, intends to return the nation to the old paradigm of unlimited government, oppression and revolution. That president is spitting in the face of the Enlightenment. Their actions prove that they seek to return us to unlimited government. Such a person clearly holds themselves to no standard whatsoever, but demands the rest of us submit to total government, of the type that slaughtered their way across the old world, and so is a sociopath. Indeed such a person is a traitor and should be treated as such.