Replies

If you listen to Mark Levin, who vetted Souter for Bush, you will see that Souter lied completely and totally deceived the conservative team created to ensure we get a constitutional originalist.

Perhaps. But an interview with the candidate shouldn’t be the only source of information about his judicial philosophy. His articles in law journals should be closely examined. The people who know him professionaly should be asked about him. He surely gives lectures. Does he give lectures for conservative institutions (Hillsdale College, The Hoover Institution, The Federalist Society, etc.)? What does he say in those lectures?

The problem is that Republican presidents often wanted stealth candidates. Even if stealth candidates are the only way to overcome the Senate’s opposition, it is necessary to choose a candidate whose judicial philosophy is known to someone we can trust.

Sometimes it was known even before the confirmation that the candidate isn’t an originalist. John Roberts was said to be a minimalist, not an originalist. After John Roberts was nominated, I read in an online forum a sigh of relief by someone who presented himself as a liberal. He was nominated anyway.

It makes me wonder whether previous Republican administrations really wanted the Supreme Court with an originalist majority. The moderately-conservative Supreme Court, yes, but the originalist Supreme Court, no.