|I've been seeing some virulent skepticism about Kavanaugh's 'purity' in various comments on the Web.|
Posted by: TEEBONE ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
I would argue this:
Question: If his judicial philosophy is textualist, originalist and constitutionalist, what difference does his personal preference as to outcome make? He has proved that he follows originalist principle and arrives at conclusions unmitigated by any preferred outcome.
He didn't 'support' Roberts viz Obamacare. He stuck to originalist principle despite his probable discomfort with the outcome. His opinion was based upon a central tenet of common law - that there can be no colorable legal action without specific harm already having been done. At that time, no such case was before the court. He argued that the court therefore had no jurisdiction to act. As troubling as some may find that, I see it as a plus.
That's what a jurist is supposed to do. That is what an originalist does. And with 300 opinions under his belt arrived at via the originalist method, the assumption that he is judicially predisposed to either preserving or overturning Roe is absurd.
LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATEDemocrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||View All||Previous | Next | Current page|
|Replies to this message|