Judges espousing a philosophy of original understanding maintain that school desegregation cases decided on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment were wrongly decided because?

1 he original intent of the framers was to defer to the will of legislative bodies.
2 we do not know that it was ever the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment to end segregation.
3 it was only intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and not address issues of school segregation.
4 originalism is contrary to activism.

To determine why judges espousing a philosophy of original understanding maintain that school desegregation cases decided on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment were wrongly decided, we can analyze their viewpoint and arguments.

1. The first argument is that the original intent of the framers was to defer to the will of legislative bodies. This perspective suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to address or intervene in issues of school segregation. Instead, they believed that such matters should be decided by the legislative bodies at the state and local levels. Judges who hold this view argue that the courts exceeded their authority by making decisions on school desegregation.

2. The second argument is that we do not know that it was ever the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment to end segregation. Originalist judges may contend that the framers did not specifically address school segregation in the Amendment's language or its original understanding. Therefore, they argue that it would be improper for judges to extend the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to include desegregation issues.

3. Another viewpoint suggested by originalist judges is that the Fourteenth Amendment was only intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and not address issues of school segregation. They argue that the Amendment was primarily focused on securing equal rights and due process for African Americans, rather than addressing issues related to education and school segregation.

4. Finally, it should be noted that the statement in the question, "originalism is contrary to activism," is not directly related to the question's main argument. However, it may reflect a broader philosophical or ideological debate between originalism (interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent) and activism (interpreting the Constitution in a way that addresses contemporary social and political issues).

It's important to recognize that these arguments do not represent a consensus view, and there are alternative interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment that support the court's decisions on school desegregation. Different judges and legal scholars may have varying perspectives on this issue based on their judicial philosophy and understanding of constitutional interpretation.