National and Minnesota Report
The wordsmithing and creationist approach to interpreting the US Constitution is clearly evident in the Judge Amy Coney Barrett hearing in the US Senate Judiciary hearing. As a acolyte of Justice Antonin Scalia she sets off on the wrong footing. In the first place, Textualism is a false precept and is merely a justification of a Conservative read of the document and then coming out with one’s own opinion. As the various Democratic Senators try to get at Coney Barrett’s judicial philosophy, they keep running into her constructed wall of a time differential, when she was an academic where her Conservatism is most prevalent and after being seated on the Circuit Court where her ruling show her supposed evolution to a more judicious person.
As we hear the terms like Textualism, Originalism and Super Precedent, we are left without guidance. Originalism is a false interpretation or understanding of the Constitution. and Textualism is similarly disposed to this reading of statutes. Super Precedent amounts to seven US Supreme Court rulings that will never be challenged, 1) Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review of a statute; 2) Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee which recognized the necessity for the exercise of Supreme Court review over a state court judgment resting on interpretations of federal law: 3) Mapp v. Ohio which codified the 4th Amendment and aligns with the belief that the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged: 4) Luther v. Borden followed by Baker v. Carr, Luther for recognizing the classical political question doctrine, and Baker for clarifying it, which led to Bush v. Gore: 5) Brown v. Board of Education which struck down state mandated segregation and the concept of separate but equal; 6) 1883 Civil Rights Cases, 7) Washington v. Davis giving rise to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; 7) Separation of Powers seen as recently in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
Hearing about Horizontal Stare Decisis seems like a made-up idea associate with Super Precedent.
With our research we also learned, there is an anti-Super precedent seen in Lochner v. New York and Dred Scott v. Sanford.
But from her testimony we now know share does not believe Roe v Wade as settled law or Super Precedent.
As a Roman Catholic, when she is installed will mean there are seven of the nine with either the same faith or were raised as such. So, the question is if it is Canon Law she follows or the Roman Catholic Biblical Canon. If she strict Catholic and ascribes to the encyclical of the enshrined Saint Paul VI and his Humanae Vitae that would mean she believes a Vasectomy is of equal moral standing as is abortion, which would be equal to scrutinize. As candidate John F Kennedy (D) famously said, “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.” Of course, true Catholics will say they do follow the direction of the pope, excepting the current Pope Francis and Pope John XXIII because of Vatican II.
In the gleaning of seeking for judicial philosophy Our US Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) discussed her time with her mother in norther Minnesota where as a child she show animal tracks on trails and dirty roads and encouraged to follow the track and maybe she would happen upon the animal which made them To which she closed her time during the questioning be saying, “I am looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the American People.”