Sen. Feinstein's opening sounds more like a legislative markup hearing for the ACA. She is detailing the benefits under the ACA to a nominee who is not supposed to legislate from the bench. The best way to emphasize apolitical judging is not to try to sell a nominee on a policy.
...How Barrett feels about the ACA is not relevant to how she must review the constitutionality of the statute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made this clear when he wrote: "I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job."
...Now Sen. Leahy is explaining the value of the ACA to Barrett. Is this the type of argument that Democratic members want to sway jurists? If so, jurists would become super legislators. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Barrett would vote against severance on the ACA.
...I support the ACA. I always have but I do not want justices to be sold on the benefits of any Act as opposed to its constitutionality.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
