Under "originalism", it was understood that no woman would serve on #SCOTUS. What's the legal reasoning, applying the same strict textualism that conservatives use inconsistently, for why that has changed without a Constitutional amendment declaring it so?
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/oconnor-nominated-to-supreme-court
@wjmaggos The wikipedia page you link says "all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted"" Nothing in the constitution was originally meant to mean that women cannot serve on the court. The whole of article 3 is like one page. It's easy to read.
@valleyforge
all text requires interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism