Posted on 11/18/2016 10:58:14 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
Earlier this year, Trump released a list of eleven potential Supreme Court nominees, later adding ten more names. He has said he will definitely choose his first nominee from those individuals. They are all known as conservative in outlook, but the vetting should go much deeper into their judicial philosophy.
In his November 17th Wall Street Journal article, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett points out that there should be two crucial desiderata for Trump’s Supreme Court nominations. One is whether the individual adheres to an Originalist view of the Constitution. That is to say, trying to find the meaning of our basic law by asking what the drafters of the articles and amendments intended.
That is the most obvious fault line between “liberal” and “conservative” jurists. The former often ignore original intent in favor of a “living Constitution” approach that yields the results they favor. All of the people on Trump’s announced list are there because they have shown their preference for Originalism.
But Originalism shouldn’t be enough, Barnett argues. Trump’s team should also look for a nominee who isn’t wedded to the legal concept known as stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand.” Judges who follow that maxim are not inclined to overturn precedents. While there is much to be said for stare decisis in most fields of the law – stability and predictability are important after all – that isn’t the case when it comes to constitutional rights. Erroneous decisions of the past should be reexamined whenever called into question.
Judges who blindly adhere to stare decisis help to cement in place the vast federal administrative and regulatory state that often sacrifices individual rights on the altar of collectivist and authoritarian policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
If he’s able to serve as Senator, then he is eligible to be in the Supreme Court.
As for the rest, are you trying to become a writer for one of the liberal magazines that sensationalizes anything conservative like they did with Trump?
And you may minimize it, but as for the Supreme Court, nothing else matters except whether he is conservative. If you’re going to participate, bring something more as I’ve not got the patience.
WRONG!
If he’s able eligible to serve as Senator, then he is eligible to be in the Supreme Court. And you don't know that he is.
liberal magazines
Breitbart?
as for the Supreme Court, nothing else matters except whether he is conservative.
He has to be a US citizen.
If you’re going to participate, bring something more as I’ve not got the patience.
DJT called him a Canadian. Are you calling Trump a liar?
Truth is, there are almost no Originalists, certainly no reservoir on the federal bench or in America’s law schools. Most judges some claim are Originalists are actually Textualists, and there is a huge difference.
Stare decisis stems from logic; court rulings are assumed to be valid. That doesn’t mean courts can’t have their rulings reversed. Stare decisis is a broad principle, not an iron law.
I believe most people - even activists - have no idea how pernicious current legal theory and practice is. No president and no small group of Supreme Court Justices is going to change the prevailing legal theory taught in law schools.
Sorry, you’ll have to troll harder to get me to bite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.