Skip to comments.The Ideal Trump Supreme Court Pick: An Originalist Who Isn't A Fan Of Stare Decisis
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 Trumps 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 Trumps announced list are there because they have shown their preference for Originalism.
But Originalism shouldnt be enough, Barnett argues. Trumps team should also look for a nominee who isnt 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 isnt 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 ...
Why has not Rick Santorum been mentioned for a position? Any ideas.
Third question: What does natural born citizen mean?
Born here of citizen parents
No possibility of being anything else
No foreign birth
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
Any other answer is not true to the original intent of the founders.
They did not intend to make the King of Thailand (born here) or Winston Churchill (American mother) eligible.
Why would Congress have bestowed honorary citizenship on Churchill if he was already a natural born citizen?
The Dred Scott decision was overturned (as it should have been)...no reason why others can’t be overturned.
Basically, this article is calling for President Trump to nominate another Justice Thomas. I hope he does so.
Stare decisis was destroyed by Obama’s appointments. It will be some time before it will be a valid criteria.
“Living Constitution” is tyranny. If you want something in the Constitution, get an Amendment. Yes, it’s supposed to be hard to do.
“Any other answer is not true to the original intent of the founders.”
So, you rule out the children of military officers serving abroad?
Can’t agree with that.
There should be dozens of written questions composed by a panel of conservative legal scholars on all important matters and the written answers of the nominee should be made public.
No more Warrens, Burgers or Roberts please.
“Oxford Dictionary”, Second Edition
Volume X page 245
“1709 Act 7 Anne c. 5...The Children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the Liegeance of her Majesty...shall be deemed...to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom.”
That 1709 law was I believe what the founders would have gone by. Anne was Queen of England in 1709.
“The Congress shall have Power
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”
Congress has the power to grant patents. Yes?
Even on drugs?
What if the drugs are life-saving and people can’t afford them?
Can Congress indirectly subsidize the purchase of these drugs under the “necessary and proper” power?
To me, case precedent became a problem only after FDRs state sovereignty-ignoring justices started using outcome-driven case decisions to rewrite the Constitution.
State sovereignty-respecting jutices before FDR era seemed to know what they were doing.
Let’s not make it complicated. Ted Cruz for the current opening. Then we have some time to determine the ideal pick for Ruth’s spot.
Dred Scott was not overturned. It was rendered moot by the 14th Amendment.
F stare decisis. Stare decisis has and continues to ruin this country.
Translation: it was overturned.
Stare decisis only applies to the sucker conservative justices. The leftist judges will ignore it without a second thought if it advances the leftist ratchet another click.
Lurkin, sadly, a remarkable number millennials don’t know after who our capital was named. Barack never claimed to be a natural born citizen. The media and “birther” campaign shut up those who didn’t know the truth,
By fat the legal citations between 1790 and 1820 were to Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations. Control of the media and ignorance protected Obama. Obama and McCaskill tried to insure that foreign-born McCain was Obama’s opponent by submitting Senate Bill 2678 in February 2008. It was a bill to make the foreign-born children of military citizens into natural born citizens. It failed to pass. So they came back with Senate Resolution 511, “A Resolution that Senator John Sidney McCain is a Natural born Citizen”. Resolutions are not actionable.
The “Birther” agitprop will probably scare those who know he law, and there are lots who do. from correcting the misapprehension. Some, liee Obama’s and Cruz’ constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe. Larry is simply says that he believes in a living constitution.
No, it was made moot.
Plessey v. Ferguson was overturned, by Brown v. Board of Ed. Dred Scott was overruled and rendered moot by a Constitutional amendment. See the difference?
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.