10-13-2020, 02:36 PM
(10-13-2020, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe Ginsberg herself stated that it was wholly inappropriate for a nominee to entertain those types of hypothetical "how would you rule" answers. I also think your supposition, while not entirely untrue, ignores the extreme differences in potential cases that may come before SCOTUS that deal with the same core issue.
I don't disagree with Ginsberg's statement. I think Senators asking those questions is inappropriate. Honestly, I think the whole idea of a case being "settled law" is wrong, as well. Each case comes up and should be decided on the merits of the case. Precedent is for the lower courts to utilize in guiding their rulings, but the SCOTUS shouldn't be looking at precedent as a determinant. They can use cases to bolster their arguments, but their job is to set precedent, not follow it.
But, this is my idealized view of how the judicial system should work, not how it does work in the current climate. I know full well that the court is partisan and this pick just furthers that, IMHO.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
