I thought it was interesting to see Senators trying to get her to commit to their favored legal activism while simultaneously decrying potential legal activism. Refusing to play that game was smart.
I believe without precedent to glean an answer from, it's an untested legal theory requiring more than an off the cuff answer.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There is no escape from judicial activism with a court that has power it shouldn't have, that should be in elected representatives.
To throw out the ACA, ridiculous, the supreme court never should have the ability to weigh in on legislative matters like that, actual governance is too important to leave to unelected lifetime appointments.
Trees don't grow on money
As is often the case Supreme Court cases often get decided because of quirky ‘technicalities’ for lack of a better word. It will be interesting to see if the court feels that the individual mandate in the ACA is considered to be severance from the rest of the law. Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have, in other decisions, leaned towards the belief that provisions of laws that get struck down as unconstitutional should be severed if possible, leaving the remainder of the law in force. Will they come to that conclusion with the current ACA case? Only time will tell.
I see the Senate Judiciary Committee has sent the nomination forward. The Democrats stayed away and sent cardboard figures in their stead.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I guess I don't understand... how is not court packing by putting Barrett in during the election right now? How was it not court packing when Merrick Garland was not allowed to be part of the SCOTUS because it was too close the election (what 8 months later)? I am not trying to snark but don't understand the difference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)