You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myPalmBeachPost.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myPalmBeachPost.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myPalmBeachPost.com.

Questions for Supreme Court nominee Judge Gorsuch


WASHINGTON — This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will question Neil Gorsuch about the judiciary’s role. Herewith some pertinent questions:

— Lincoln’s greatness began with his recoil from the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which empowered residents of those territories to decide whether to have slavery. The act’s premise was that “popular sovereignty” — majorities’ rights — is the essence of the American project. Is it, or is liberty?

— Justice Robert Jackson wrote, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to … place (certain subjects) beyond the reach of majorities.” Was that not also the purpose of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause? It says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Was this amendment’s purpose to ensure that the natural rights of all citizens would be protected from abridgement by their states?

— If so, was the court wrong in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases? It essentially erased the Privileges and Immunities Clause, holding that it did not secure natural rights (e.g., the right to enter contracts and earn a living), for the protection of which, the Declaration of Independence says, governments are instituted.

— Chief Justice John Roberts says the doctrine of stare decisis — previous court decisions are owed respect — is not an “inexorable command.” The ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), upholding racial segregation in separate but equal facilities, has been undone. Should the Slaughterhouse Cases ruling be revisited?

— The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Robert Bork said this is akin to an “inkblot” on the Constitution that judges should ignore. Do you agree? How can judges be faithful to this amendment? Was Madison correct that it should dispose us against a latitudinarian interpretation of Congress’ powers? Is the Ninth Amendment pertinent to, say, the right to earn a living free from unreasonable licensure requirements or other barriers to entry into an occupation?

— Other than a law that abridges a liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are there limits to Congress’ power over interstate commerce?

— The Fifth Amendment says no property shall be taken “for public use” without just compensation. In the 2005 Kelo case, the court upheld a city’s seizure of private property not to facilitate construction of a public structure or to cure blight, but for the “public use” of transferring it to a wealthier private interest that would pay more taxes. Did the court err?

— Citizens United held that unions and corporations, particularly incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups, can engage in unregulated spending that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns. Was the court correct that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to speak collectively?

— Is it constitutional for Congress, by regulating political spending, to control the quantity and timing of political speech?

— You commendably believe that judges should adhere to the “original public meaning” of the Constitution’s text. Would you feel bound to follow a previous court decision that did not evaluate evidence of original meaning and was, in your view, in conflict with it? If not, would you be elevating the views of judges over those of the Framers?

— Oliver Wendell Holmes, a deferential, majoritarian jurist, said: “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.” Discuss.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Letters Problem isn’t fraud; it’s voter suppression

Problem isn’t fraud; it’s voter suppression Your editorial, “Fix Florida’s absurdly lax mail-in voting laws” (Wednesday), is missing the point. The problem in our elections is a lack of participation, not fraud. Many eligible voters don’t vote at all or are not even registered. This is especially the case when it...
POINT OF VIEW Price controls won’t work in post-PIP world

However well intentioned, price controls will not work in Florida, if the Legislature moves to finally repeal the No-Fault/Personal Insurance Protection (PIP) auto insurance system this spring. While the concept of No-Fault/PIP may sound reasonable — $10,000 of personal injury protection made available regardless of fault in an accident &mdash...
cartoon
cartoon

CARTOON VIEW DANA SUMMERS
Gerson: How Trump can get his groove back

The central promise of the Trump administration — the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — has failed. The central premise of the Trump administration — that Donald Trump is a brilliant negotiator — has been discredited. In the process of losing a legislative battle, Trump has lost the theory of his presidency. It was a profoundly...
Dowd: Dear DJT: Are we going to lose so much we’ll get tired of losing?

Dear Donald, We’ve known each other a long time, so I think I can be blunt. You know how you said at campaign rallies that you did not like being identified as a politician? Don’t worry. No one will ever mistake you for a politician. After this past week, they won’t even mistake you for a top-notch negotiator. I was born in D.C. And...
More Stories