One of the difficulties found in the interviews by the Senate of Judges nominated to the Supreme Court and, the lesser courts also, is that each side asks only how the judge would rule in a specific cases. If the answer corresponds to the questioner's bias the judge passes, otherwise he is "not fit."
I think that we should, instead, ask those nominated what they think the meanings are of the various clauses in the Constitution. What does the 2nd amendment mean as concerns an individual right to bear arms. What does the 14th Amendment (Privileges or Immunities clause) mean? Where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to spend money on anything it wants?
Don't ask how these clauses would be applied to specific cases or circumstances, just what do they mean and how did the nominee ascertain this meaning. Are they bound by the original public meaning or is it just a factor in their judgment. If just a factor what are the other factors and how do they align them with the meanings of the clause.
Perhaps the comedian, qua Senator, Al Franken could lead the way in positing what the Constitution really means. That would be a sight wouldn't it! He would probably get a lot of laughs. But then how many Senators could expound upon this subject in any case? I would posit darn few!
But such an approach would negate all the fodelrol concerning individual cases and circumstances and we would have a clear view of the nominees approach to their responsibilities in the high court.
No comments:
Post a Comment