So far I really like and certainly respect the guy. I will learn more during the hearings, but if we had nine guys like that on the Court, I believe we would be way ahead of where we are now.
Art,
You are pretty outspoken about where you believe the government should be fiscally; how about on the social aspects (as that is what really inflame the rhetoric on both sides)?
mdo
I am not really sure how to answer such a general question. Can you narrow it down a bit?
Ok, we’ll hit the hot buttons:
-
Does the state/feds have the right to discriminate against homosexuals (housing/employment/benefits)?
-
Does the federal government have the right to forbid gay marriage?
-
R v W?
-
Is there an inherent right to privacy granted by the constitution (even if not explicity spelled out)?
-
Is teaching creationism/ID in public schools a violation of the separation of church & state?
I won’t get into the whole God/10 Commandments/Pledge thing as this will quickly degenerate per usual LR form.
- I don’t know the answer to this question exactly. For the most part I really wouldn’t want to see the government discrimination on this basis in housing or employment. Benefits are more arguable. Absent specific laws to the contrary though, I believe private individuals should have some of these rights. I would support some laws restricting some of these private rights, but would oppose others.
As with this and most issues, I am a big believer in democracy. There is certainly nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting discrimination on this basis, though there probably is in some state constitutions. I am a big non believer in having such issues decided by judges imposing their personal policy preferences.
-
The federal government certainly has the right to prohibit gay marriage, but I would not support such a law except for federal considerations such as the tax code. This issue is best left to the states to be decided through the democratic process.
-
What does R v W mean? I am guessing Roe v. Wade. It is a terrible decision, the worst decision by far during my lifetime. It created an illegitimate right via judicial fiat that should have been earned through the democratic process. I don’t think I have heard anyone in the last 20 years actually try to intellectual defend it.
I can easily make a much more intelligent interpretation of the Constitution to the effect that the Constitution prohibits abortion. Both sets of arguments are total BS of course.
This issue needs to get kicked back to the state legislatures, where my pro life positions will probably lose for the most part, but not entirely by any means. After a few years the democratic process would sort it out and it would become a non issue, much as it is in England for example. This illegitimate decision is destroying our judiciary.
-
There are very explicit rights to privacy spelled out in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, religion and of the Press. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The rights that are there are clearly there. I don’t believe in emanations from penumbras, and I have a hard time taking someone seriously who intellectually does.
-
Teaching about Creationism or ID is certainly not a separation of Church and State problem per the Constitution, assuming it is done somewhat intelligently. Ditto for teaching about the Bible. Whether teaching such subjects is a particularly good idea is another matter. I waffle back and forth on that one.
Shit, as I was afraid of, we are closer on our beliefs than I would like 
R v W is the only one we differ, and it is more the slippery-slope argument than anything else re the government telling somebody what they can or can’t do with their own body.