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

Skip to comments.

The Ideal Trump Supreme Court Pick: An Originalist Who Isn't A Fan Of Stare Decisis
Forbes ^ | November 18, 2016 | George Leef

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: originalism; supreme; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
The referenced WSJ article is Two Questions for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Nominees.
1 posted on 11/18/2016 10:58:14 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Why has not Rick Santorum been mentioned for a position? Any ideas.


2 posted on 11/18/2016 11:01:27 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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?


3 posted on 11/18/2016 11:03:26 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam , Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The Dred Scott decision was overturned (as it should have been)...no reason why others can’t be overturned.


4 posted on 11/18/2016 11:06:24 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Basically, this article is calling for President Trump to nominate another Justice Thomas. I hope he does so.


5 posted on 11/18/2016 11:07:24 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Stare decisis was destroyed by Obama’s appointments. It will be some time before it will be a valid criteria.


6 posted on 11/18/2016 11:12:07 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (NoHellary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Living Constitution” is tyranny. If you want something in the Constitution, get an Amendment. Yes, it’s supposed to be hard to do.


7 posted on 11/18/2016 11:14:20 AM PST by rightwingcrazy ("We will not tolerate those who are intolerant of the intolerant.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

“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.


8 posted on 11/18/2016 11:19:24 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


9 posted on 11/18/2016 11:33:08 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

“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.


10 posted on 11/18/2016 11:37:49 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

“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;
....

—And

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?


11 posted on 11/18/2016 11:41:31 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; All

To me, case precedent became a problem only after FDR’s 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.


12 posted on 11/18/2016 11:42:05 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


13 posted on 11/18/2016 11:48:31 AM PST by SarahPalin2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
The Dred Scott decision was overturned (as it should have been)...no reason why others can’t be overturned.

Dred Scott was not overturned. It was rendered moot by the 14th Amendment.

14 posted on 11/18/2016 11:52:47 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

F stare decisis. Stare decisis has and continues to ruin this country.


15 posted on 11/18/2016 11:59:41 AM PST by bkopto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Dred Scott was not overturned. It was rendered moot by the 14th Amendment.

Translation: it was overturned.

16 posted on 11/18/2016 12:05:10 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


17 posted on 11/18/2016 12:08:08 PM PST by bkopto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

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.


18 posted on 11/18/2016 12:12:48 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Translation: it was overturned.

No, it was made moot.

19 posted on 11/18/2016 12:33:40 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

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?


20 posted on 11/18/2016 12:35:38 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 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