Replies

He assumes that SC judges are "very much influenced by precedent", and "should be a very good lawyer". Well, color me unimpressed. No where in his last answers is any mention of the constitution. He sounds like a "stare decisis" kind of guy, and we already have enough of those.

We need judges associated with an originalist or at a minimum a strict constructionist judicial philosophy. I assume if he means to appoint a nominee to SCOTUS that agrees with his political philosophy we are likely to see another O'Conner, or even worse another Souter type of judge on the bench. Yuk! Sounds like shades of the Harriet Meiers failed nomination might return in spades.

"He assumes that SC judges are "very much influenced by precedent", and "should be a very good lawyer". Well, color me unimpressed. No where in his last answers is any mention of the constitution. He sounds like a "stare decisis" kind of guy, and we already have enough of those."

Very true. Vertical stare decisis is essential to the stability of this country. Horizontal stare decisis is important too, but it's far more flexible than vertical and the Left doesn't really care one iota about it.

Just think if this "respect stare decisis" mantra had carried the day when it came to such horrible decisions as Plessy v. Ferguson. Some cases need to be overruled or ignored because they are horrible law. Cases can bring stability (although Roe, Casey, and their progency have brought none whatsoever) and still need to be overruled because of their incorrectness and atrociousness. Justice Thomas and Scalia get this concept. I think Alito and (to some extent) Roberts get it too. (Though I'm not sure that they are quite as willing as Thomas and Scalia to overrule major precedents.)

It is my hope that one day we'll look back on the abortion cases like we now look back on Dred Scott.