Explain the concept of ‘original intent’ in the judicial philosophy of the US Supreme Court.

Original intent is a concept closely linked to strict constructionism. It means that the Constitution, should not be interpreted in a proactive way, adapting rights mentioned in the document to modern times. Hence, debates like transgender issues should be solved by politicians, rather than judges, so that they are not seen as politicians in robes and legislating from the bench. It still, however, means interpretation - but rather than broadening rights of citizens and the federal government, judges adopting this philosophy rely on the 10th Amendment, reserving all remaining rights not mentioned in the Constitution to the States and their respective legislature. Thus, it can appear as if the judges are taking a more 'laissez-faire' approach. It can be seen in the recent Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), when the Court ruled against the gay couple who were denied a wedding cake on the basis of the cakeshop owner's Christian (sic!) beliefs. The judges argue that the Constitution protects the freedom of religion, whereas it does not offer protection against discrimination against different sexualities. This links back to original intent, putting the historical document's primacy over civil rights.