This week has been the week of hearings in Washington, DC. The House Intelligence Committee is hearing about Trump/Russia, and the Senate Judicial Committee is hearing about Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch.
Gorsuch first...I don't trust him. He strikes me as a completely fake person - he's amped up his 'folksy' mannerisms to 11. He wants me to think he's like Sherriff Andy Taylor from Mayberry. He reminds me of an actor OVERacting like he's a nice guy. It's odd and creepy.
Democrats don't know how to handle it. Should they filibuster this guy because he's an 'originalist' and this nomination was STOLEN from Obama because Republicans wouldn't even hold a hearing on Merritt Garland? Or, should they let him go and save their filibuster for the next nominee?
Gorsuch is a replacement for Scalia who was also an 'originalist', so the balance of the court isn't going to be different than it was before Scalia. On the other hand, Gorsuch is much younger and will be on the court for many years ahead. I believe he would overturn Roe v Wade based on his own religious beliefs. And the Democrats keep giving the Republicans an 'inch' but they won't give a 'millimeter'.
Another consideration: If the Democrats use the filibuster on this guy, then Mitch McConnell would be expected to use the so-called 'nuclear option' which would change the Senate rules to allow a Supreme Court nominee to be approved with only a simple majority (currently most administration nominees only require a majority vote, but the exception is the Supreme Court which requires a 2/3 majority, as I recall). If the Senate rules are changed, that means the NEXT Supreme Court nominee would definitely change the balance of the court and the Democrats wouldn't be able to do anything about it because right now they are NOT the majority in the Senate.
The Supreme Court is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE POLITICAL!!!! It's supposed to be the interpretor of our laws and constitution regardless of political party. We should feel safe knowing they're an equal branch of government.
It's the 'Originalists' vs the 'Living Document' debate.
Republicans tend to support the 'Originalist' point of view, mostly because they don't believe in a strong Federal government. The 'Originalist' crowd say if the question isn't specifically addressed in the constitution, then there is no law that supports it. They think if it's not in there, then the legislature has to make a law. Its hard to make a constitutional law that all the states will ratify. We couldn't even get an Equal Rights Amendment passed.
The 'Living Document' crowd believes the writers of the constitution couldn't have foreseen the issues we have to deal with in today's world and we have to interpret their spirit.
What if the Originalists were in charge when we were discussing the rights of people of all races? Would the South ever have voted to ratify an amendment that gives equal rights to all people with regard to race? And what about women - we can't even get an Equal Rights Amendment passed (ironically because the people say its OBVIOUS so we don't need to define it specifically)?
It's because a court who believes that our country has some inalienable rights that aren't specifically mentioned but that we can interpret from the original writings.
As it turns out, the Roe v Wade issue has made the Court very political.
People believe Roe v Wade is bad only because it's their BELIEF that God created life, that it starts at conception, and it's murder to abort a fetus.
But, that goes counter to the idea that the we each have our own right to our own beliefs and our own body.
The Originalists want the right to abortion voted on in each state. The 'Living Document' crowd think we have a right to abortion because the constitution says we have a right to authority over our own bodies.
This one is so convoluted by the Trump Administration's own actions, it's unbelievable he's still our President.
And - there's also the health care (Repeal and Replace Obamacare) debate going on in the House of Representatives this week. It's not so much a debate as an attempt by Republicans to do what they said they wanted to do since the ACA/Obamacare became law.
Lots of political activity! It's crazy.
Oh yeah - don't forget ISIS and North Korea.
Yesterday: "In a deadly attack on Wednesday in London, a man driving a sport utility vehicle crushed pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, then stabbed and killed a police officer outside Parliament"
Four killed, 40 wounded. The assailant was also killed.
Note: All the links today are from The New York Times.
I generally like to find links from a variety of sources, but I don't have time this morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment