I am hopeful that Gorsuch is everything we conservatives and constitutionalists want him to be, but when I read the except below, I am a little bit concerned:
“...In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible.”
As a Christian, I am not a fan of judging right/wrong by outcomes. The meaning of the 2A does not depend on crime statistics. The desirability of limited government does not depend on whether widespread health insurance is achieved. We should leave the outcome based approach in ethics to the secular humanists (ie. the modern liberals aka socialists).
Maybe I’m just missing the point? Either way, I am looking forward to hearing how Gorsuch responds to conservatives. Here’s hoping that he gets some really good original-intent questions to test his bona fides.
This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.
Or, to make the sentence in question more clear, let's remove the hyphenated portion: In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs are not possible.
It is a defense of keeping arguments and debate about morality and the cultural fabric of society to the realm of the legislative, to the representatives and voices of the people; it is far from an endorsement of using the judiciary as a bludgeon to change the body politic, regardless of motive.