Bradley's "Originalist" Constitution does not protect or promote "a more equal society!!!"

I never thought Rebecca Bradley would be partisan enough to highlight, and go after, JoAnne Kloppenburg for her promise to promote a more equal society. I was wrong.

The Constitution doesn't promote a more Equal Society? Apparently "originalists" have decided all rights have already been doled out, end of story. Forget any new challenges and efforts to discriminate.

Bradley's "originalist" Constitution believes "a more equal society" is a return to the days when the middle class fought back and threatened the status quo. She made that clear in the editorials she wrote at Marquette University. In a recent partisan rant, Bradley proved once again she hasn't moved an inch from her bigoted, partisan, condescending comments of the past:

In a March 21, 2016 interview on Wisconsin Public Radio’s "Joy Cardin Show," Bradley said:

"Given her judicial philosophy, JoAnne Kloppenburg has told us she thinks it's her job to promote a more equal society. She will most definitely introduce her social and political beliefs into her decision making."

But as PolitiFact pointed out, it wasn't Kloppenburg's idea so much as something the courts have emphasized over centuries:

"...my decisions are based on the law and the facts, not on ideology or partisan politics. I am faithful to the court’s role as an independent check and balance on the other political branches of government. My duty is to uphold the Constitution, a sacred document that represents the will of the people and which contains the fundamental principles that define our democracy, protect individual rights and promote a more equal society."
Kloppenburg’s statement is more broad than Bradley suggests.

If Bradley doesn't like the idea of "a more equal society," or thinks it's partisan to expect that from our courts, then by all means let's make sure voters know what she won't do...

"...JoAnne Kloppenburg has told us she thinks it's her job to promote a more equal society." 

Amazing. But there's a reason Bradley doesn't agree with a more equal society; because it's part of a "living breathing" reading of the Constitution, the opposite of her originalist philosophy.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Chief Justice John Marshall had lectured the American people to always remember that the Constitution is intended "to be adopted to the various crises of human affairs." This notion of a "living constitution" is not accepted by all scholars or judges, but the history of the Equal Protection Clause in the last half-century would indicate that its applications, and possibly its meaning as well, have changed over time.