Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Questions for Donald Trumpís Supreme Court Nominees
Wall Street Journal ^ | November 17, 2016 | RANDY E. BARNETT

Posted on 11/18/2016 10:55:01 AM PST by reaganaut1

When the Federalist Society opens its three-day National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, the official topic of conversation will be “the jurisprudence and legacy of Justice Scalia.”

Even before his arrival at the Supreme Court in 1986, Antonin Scalia was known for his commitment to “originalism.” As a federal circuit court judge, he rejected the approach of divining the “Framers’ intention,” as Raoul Berger and Robert Bork had advocated. Instead, Scalia insisted that judges seek the public meaning of the text at the time it was enacted.

I’m pleased to see that President-elect Trump is echoing Scalia. Last week Mr. Trump’s transition team affirmed that he will nominate judges “who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning.” During the campaign Mr. Trump released a list of 21 potential candidates for Scalia’s seat. Those on the list with whom I am familiar would be sympathetic to originalism.

The bigger unknown is where they stand on stare decisis—Latin for “let it stand.” This is the idea that precedents of previous Supreme Courts should be followed, even when they conflict with the original text of the Constitution. Here is where Scalia’s friend and colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, comes to the fore.

Justice Thomas has been more willing to reject stare decisis and reverse precedents. Consider the New Deal-era case Wickard v. Filburn. In 1942 the Supreme Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock. Sixty-three years later, that expansive reading of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause continues to hold.

(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: originalism; supreme; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 11/18/2016 10:55:01 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Third question: What doers natural born citizen mean?


2 posted on 11/18/2016 10:56:06 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Fat fingers, take two:
What does natural born citizen mean?

Anyone who wants to make anchor babies, the King of Thailand(born here) and Winston Churchill (American mother) eligible should be rejected.


3 posted on 11/18/2016 10:58:48 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

So what’s the 2nd question? Not subscribed.


4 posted on 11/18/2016 10:59:06 AM PST by Wneighbor (Deplorable. And we win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
For some stupid reason my 'puter times out before the page loads. It never did that before we turned the internet over to the UN. Thanks, Obama.

Can somebody just post the questions?

5 posted on 11/18/2016 10:59:13 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
One question *I* would like to ask *every* nominee to the Federal courts is “when the Constitution states that a particular right “shall not be infringed” what exactly does that mean?”
6 posted on 11/18/2016 11:03:15 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

If you are going to ask what NBC means, you also need to ask what does the enumerated power of Congress “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” mean.


7 posted on 11/18/2016 11:04:35 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
1. Where do our Rights come from?
2. What is the purpose of Government?
8 posted on 11/18/2016 11:05:08 AM PST by real saxophonist ( YouTube + Twitter + Facebook = YouTwitFace.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Nuke the Senate filibuster rules! Nuke ‘em now. If the far left can put morons like Sotomayor and Nagen on the SCOTUS and jackasses like Holder and Lynch in the AG spot, Americans should be allowed to have whoever they want in those spots also. Screw Orrin Hatch! If he’s worried about the “minority”, he needs to take his ass over there and join them.


9 posted on 11/18/2016 11:06:06 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (We need the Second Amendment to defend the Second Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real saxophonist

Those are MY questions, not from the article.


10 posted on 11/18/2016 11:06:08 AM PST by real saxophonist ( YouTube + Twitter + Facebook = YouTwitFace.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

It means exactly what it says, shall not be infringed.
Except to those who don’t like the right it which it refers.

Same as those who don’t like that their favorite is excluded by natural born citizen.


11 posted on 11/18/2016 11:06:47 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I want a Supreme Court nominee who thinks Scalia was a pinko.


12 posted on 11/18/2016 11:12:03 AM PST by Hardastarboard (Freedom Trumps Fascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

No law written by Congress changes the Constitution.
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents, same as when it was written into the Constitution.
One is NATURALLY a US citizen ONLY when one CANNOT be anything else.
No foreign birth
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)


13 posted on 11/18/2016 11:13:57 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
From the article: "In 1942 the Supreme Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock. Sixty-three years later, that expansive reading of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause continues to hold."

Math is hard.

If we add "sixty-three" to "1942" we get "2005", not "2016".

Perhaps the author is basing his comments on something Justice Thomas said in 2005?

14 posted on 11/18/2016 11:17:13 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Sorry you are wrong.

There is no definition of NBC in the Constitution.

One is Naturally a US Citizen when they are born a US Citizen and do not need to be naturalized.

The Constitution specifically gave Congress the unrestricted authority over all rules of Naturalization. That includes who needs to be naturalized and who does not.

The first definition of NBC status we see came from the first acts of Congress and includes those born to US citizen parents beyond the borders of the US.


15 posted on 11/18/2016 11:25:30 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

No, you are wrong and the language of that repealed naturalization act reflects that, they said “shall be considered as natural born citizens”, which clearly indicates they were not.


16 posted on 11/18/2016 11:28:26 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

They also did not define “shall not be infringed” because they did not expect us to become so stupid we did not understand plain language,


17 posted on 11/18/2016 11:29:46 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
Third question: What doers natural born citizen mean?

THAT would be my FIRST question.

18 posted on 11/18/2016 11:42:14 AM PST by Paine in the Neck ( Socialism consumes EVERYTHING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Yes it was repeal but it was ALSO replaced. And that act was repealed and replaced an so on and so forth till we get to the current legislation. And those laws define who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized.


19 posted on 11/18/2016 12:00:20 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“”In 1942 the Supreme Court...”

That would be the congress that flew around in that 70-year-old 747.


20 posted on 11/18/2016 12:09:02 PM PST by beelzepug (For English press #1; for Spanish, learn English and press #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson