October 13, 2018

Lessons from the Kavanaugh chaos

Dana Mathewson

If it seems like I have been spending an inordinate amount of time reading the offerings from Fox News, it's because I have. There have been many good articles there.

Here is one by Christopher J. Scalia, the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. It's no surprise to find the son has a sharp, analytical mind, just as his father did. Here, he tells

"What my father, Justice Antonin Scalia, would have thought"


I’ve frequently been asked in the past few weeks what my father, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, would think about the contentious battle just waged over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the nation’s highest court.

Would he have been surprised by the heated debate, political maneuvers, protests, last-minute delays and uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct that we saw during now-Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process?

Although I don’t think my father (or anyone) could have predicted the twists and turns of the past several weeks, I don’t think he would have been shocked by the no-holds-barred fight over a Supreme Court vacancy, either. He long ago warned Americans about the excessive intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process. And he explained that a large share of the blame belongs to the justices themselves.

My father believed that a major reason the judicial confirmation process has become so heated is that federal judges too often exceed the role envisioned by our nation’s founders and usurp the power of elected representatives.

Alexander Hamilton famously argued "that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” and that "the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from” the judicial branch.

But Hamilton qualified that claim. He said it would only be true as long as "the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.” Hamilton agreed with the French political philosopher Montesquieu, who warned that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”

Maintaining that separation means limiting the role of judges. My father explained that for most of American history, Supreme Court justices recognized that the meaning of legal texts – including the Constitution – did not change.

This is an excellent article. It is evident that father and son discussed the Constitution many times. in this article, the idea of a "living Constitution" is addressed, as are the elder Scalia's thoughts on the matter.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 4 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




21kb generated in CPU 0.0091, elapsed 0.4482 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.4412 seconds, 156 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Let the Truth be Told
Newsmax
>Numbers Watch
OANN
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 78326
  • Files: 19186
  • Bytes: 10.9G
  • CPU Time: 228:55
  • Queries: 2802491

Content

  • Posts: 28373
  • Comments: 123991

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0