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

Opinion: Trump should get a special prosecutor for criminal leaks

Who is the real threat to the national security? Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners? Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world...
Friedman: A road trip through rusting and rising America

In his dystopian Inaugural Address, President Donald Trump painted a picture of America as a nation gripped by vast “carnage” that cried out for a strongman to put “America first” and stop the world from stealing our jobs. It was a shocking speech in many ways and reportedly prompted former President George W. Bush to say to...
Letters Lake Worth leaders must alter course to preserve landmarks

Lake Worth leaders must alter course Out of touch in Lake Worth is what our elected officials seem to be when it comes to managing and maintaining our public and historic sites. This focus on growth and profit over quality of life only leads to debt and blight. This business model puts undue hardship on the majority who live and work in Lake Worth...
Parker: An orb, a sword and a slap seen ‘round the world

By now you’re exhausted by all the head-swiveling news — the terrorist slaughter in Manchester; the president’s trip to Everywhere; and investigation upon investigation of the possible collusion with Russia, obstruction of justice and liars by the dozen. Which is why I’m sitting in Palm Beach practicing Lilly Pulitzer&rsquo...
POINT OF VIEW Why Florida seniors fear the American Health Care Act

It is no surprise that a key issue facing America is health care. Worrying about whether a simple medical procedure or checkup is covered by your insurance is a difficult way to go through life. As if staying active and healthy isn’t hard enough, the recent passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) by the U.S. House of Representatives has...
More Stories