Re-bumping for the Kavanaugh hearings.
Rachel Maddow a couple days ago showing a video clip from 2 years ago, June 2nd 2016, in which Kavanaugh gave a speech in honour of the late Justice Scalia.
In his remarks he brought up Scalia's dissent in two historical landmark cases, Planned Parenthood v Casey (about abortion rights, the one that basically said that government could regulate, as long as the regulation did not cause undue burden to women seeking abortions), & Obergefell v Hodges (which recognized, nationwide, the right of same-sex couples to get married).
He pretty strongly hints he agrees with Scalia's dissent, that the court was wholesale "making new rights" that were not in the constitution, and that the courts should not give deference to their own previous opinions, but give entire deference to the other branches of government (for rights not literally spelled out in the constitution I gather).
Found a transcript of a couple parts:
a fierce guarantor of individual rights articulated in the Constitution, and he was never afraid to use his judicial role to upend even seemingly settled practices that infringed on those rights. No deference [to legislators at any level] there.
[Courts] have no legitimate role, Justice Scalia would say, in creating new rights not spelled out in the Constitution. On those issues he believed in complete deference to the political branches and the states. Deference not for the sake of deference, but deference because the Constitution gave the Court no legitimate role in the case. Think about his dissents in Casey on abortion, and Obergefell on same-sex marriage, his opinions on the constitutionality of the death penalty in response to the abolitionist positions articulated by some of his fellow justices over the years. For Justice Scalia, it was not the Court's job to improve on or update the Constitution to create new rights.
And people wonder why the women's Equal Rights Amendment is necessary when there is the 14th amendment that supposedly provides equal protection.... Um, there were SCOTUS opinions that claimed that the 14th amendment equal protections clause was only about black men, it was not about women, for about a century, until 1971.
Such cases would be: Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), Minor V. Happersett (1874), Cronin v. Adams (1904), Muller v. Oregon (1908), Radice v. New York (1924), Hoyt v. Florida (1961)
Reed v Reed (1971) is the first time SCOTUS made an opinion that the 14th amendment prohibited the denial of equal protection to women. And Craig v. Boren (1976) set the standard of intermediate scrutiny for which to evaluate these equal protection claims - (1) must serve important governmental objectives and (2) must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
Edited by sierraleone, Today, 11:28 AM.