You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myStatesman.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 myStatesman.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 myStatesman.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

Commentary: On immigration, state is hurting local communities
Commentary: On immigration, state is hurting local communities

In Texas, we have a long tradition of looking out for one another. We all have a role to play in building our community’s well-being. Texans place a high priority on being practical. We roll up our sleeves and figure out how to handle a challenge in the most sensible way. We have a strong moral compass and understand that all people deserve to...
Letters to the editor: March 31, 2017
Letters to the editor: March 31, 2017

Re: March 19 article, “With land already in hand, Trump eyes Big Bend for border wall.” Stop the panic. It’s obvious the Statesman, Democrats and the liberal left don’t want a border wall, period. Describing the horrors of a border wall in Big Bend National Park is just another excuse. The answer is build the wall around the...
Commentary: Westwood High mascot a lesson in cultural blind spots
Commentary: Westwood High mascot a lesson in cultural blind spots

At Westwood High School in Round Rock, where I’m a senior, our mascot is a Native American. We call ourselves the Westwood Warriors and partake in “dressing up” as Native Americans to show our “school pride.” Two years ago, the volleyball team dressed as Hollywood’s idea of Native Americans for their team photo....
The Ryancare rout — winning by losing?

Did the Freedom Caucus just pull the Republican Party back off the ledge, before it jumped to its death? A case can be made for that. Before the American Health Care Act, aka “Ryancare,” was pulled off the House floor Friday, it enjoyed the support — of 17 percent of Americans. Had it passed, it faced an Antietam in the GOP Senate...
Health care bill failure highlights Trump’s competence gap

One of President Donald Trump’s rare strengths has been his ability to project competence. The Dow Jones stock index is up an astonishing 2,200 points since his election in part because investors believed Trump could deliver tax reform and infrastructure spending. Think again! The Trump administration is increasingly showing itself to be breathtakingly...
More Stories