ISTM there’s no convincing answer a Trump-appointed nominee can give about Roe.
“I will vote to overturn Roe” = “ohhhh…”
“I will not vote to overturn Roe” = “But you’re only saying that just because you want to get confirmed.”
What is your position on Roe?
I think it’s great. I love a little tobiko on my sushi!
Come on, man. You really think that’s the best they can do?? What actually happens is that they answer “I can only judge on cases with the specific evidence in front of me. I may rule in some ways that broaden or limit the scope of RvW but it wouldn’t be for the purpose of upholding or overturning it.”
I did.
I see now my mistake in my first reply to this.
Virtually every scholar considers the first amendment to cover things other than a literal printing press. But not every scholar would agree that the Constitution must be interpreted to reflect the changing norms and understandings of an evolving society.
The reason is that those two phrases do not describe the same thing.
Textualism holds that the words of the Constitution may certainly be applied to new technology, but the basic meaning must remain consistent with what was understood by the people who approved it.
The words “changing norms and understandings of an evolving society,” are not referring to technical advances, but to ideas about social norms. For example, the death penalty may well be regarded as “cruel and unusual,” by today’s society. But it cannot be unconstitutional, because the Constitution clearly contemplates the permissible imposition of the death penalty.
Now, since I agree that the death penalty is, for our society, cruel and unusual, I favor changing this constitutional reality. But I don’t favor a set of judges doing it. I favor an amendment.
Does that help? I regret my misreading of your post that led to the prior reponse.
Gosh, sometimes I sure wish I were a legal scholar, then my opinion would carry some weight. Alas, I could not turn my back on my family’s long tradition of dirt-farmers and horse thieves. Nonetheless, even to a boor of little brain, it seems to me that the bar for Constitutional amendment is very high. Deliberately so, most likely.
What this means is that we as a people can change somewhat more easily than our framework. Which means that, over and again, the progress of the majority is easily thwarted by the cold dead hand of the Founding Fuckups. Thus, domination by a conservative minority on many different fronts is inevitable, baked in. One unfortunate aspect of this is snide commentary by conservatives who offer advice such as “Well, just go change the Constitution, and good luck with that!”. Had I a thousand dollars for every time I’ve endured that, it wouldn’t be enough.
We were right about universal suffrage, right about slavery, right about women’s rights, right about direct election for the Senate, right so many times…and yet we must struggle against the smug contentment of those who were wrong. Because dead people said so.
But then again, most of us weren’t legal scholars either, so how could we be expected to understand the sublime reasoning of ghosts?
elucidator:
“We”? Those things that you list as right were championed by dead people also, WE are just the ones who live under the system implemented by those dead people - through the Amendment process, not by judicial fiat - rather than by the people who had died prior to those dead people.
If those causes were so right that dead people could manage to make the Amendment process work, then surely we living people aren’t so pathetic that we can’t do it too!
But you don’t have to change the Constitution to get what you believe are the changing standards of society. Your state can outlaw abortion, allow same sex marriage, provide for transgender rights, abolish the death penalty, etc. all at your state capitol.
However, what you are saying is not that. What you desire is that other people in *other *states must bow to *your *will on those issues. Yes, that should take a supermajority.
It’s not government by a dead hand; people in these states that you stare down upon from your ivory tower indeed have a different belief than you about what modern society means with regard to these issues.
The nominee could try this:
That was a part of Ginsburg’s statement during her confirmation hearing.
Someone’s sipping from the Well of Resentment…
Born and raised in Texas, living high, wide and handsome…double-wide, actually, I insist on the very best…and this guys got me sipping tea, pinkies akimbo, as we murmur over the finer points of flower arrangement.
Now that I’ve gone from trailer trash to the effete elite, am I gonna have to get new clothes?
Ted Cruz wrote an opinion piece advocating for his colleague, Mike Lee. While I’d be delighted to see a Justice Lee, it seems that Trump is likely to go in a different direction. On the off chance President Trump shocks people and does pick Mike lee, I wonder about this:
Does anyone think more Dem Senators would vote for Lee than would vote for one of the other front-runners? My impression is that collegiality is largely dead in the Senate and that Senator Lee would get 45+ no votes. Anyone disagree?
Yeah I don’t buy that argument. Lee would be treated like Gorsuch or anyone else; he’d be a SCOTUS nominee, not a Senator. He’ll get unanimous GOP vote and a few Democrat votes from Heitkamp and Munchin, et al.
I don’t know that we can take Cruz’s opinion of the opinions of his colleagues at face value. Let’s call it extreme optimism on his part.
I hear the “respect and admiration of his colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike” line trotted out about many people. Many of which are certainly not admired, and are only respected the way that you respect a co-worker who tries to undermine your own work. Put it this way, it is quite likely that Cruz thinks that he himself is respected and admired by democrats and republicans alike.
Sure, it is a collegial assembly, and they try to get along, but that doesn’t in any way mean that the dems are going to agree with putting him on SCOTUS.
Gosh, I hope not. There’s exactly one nominee for SCOTUS that the democrats should give even one vote, and anyone who does offer a vote to anyone whose name doesn’t rhyme with “Derrick Marshland” should be considered a DINO.
That ship has sailed.
That ship sank in the harbor, it has joined the Navy Invisible, it is rat-free…
You’re right, they should hold out for Obama.
Oh, I’m sure. And I’m supposing you’re pretty happy with that, what with “your side” “winning”. It doesn’t make it right. Or acceptable. And the democrats should be quite consequent about that.
Wonder how Mr Jordan will respond to this singular honor.