amendment equal protection clause. it says equal protection, equal means equal. the supreme court said in shr w shrowder, the black and the white. brown v. board focuses on text. there were racist members of congress involved who didn t think it should apply in that way, to certain aspects of public life. if you pay attention to the text you don t take account of subjective intentions nor as a general proposition to take account of the subjective intentions. they can be evidence in certain cases of the original words. they can be evidence of that? evidence that have but you don t follow the subjective intention. original public meeting of originalism and what refer to as
protection clause. says equal protection, equal means equal, the law shall be the same for the black and the white, that is brown v board, focuses on text. but there were some racist members of congress involved in that who didn t think it should apply in that way to certain aspects of public life, but we don t, if you are paying attention to the text, you don t take account of subjective intention nor is it proper as general proposition to take account of the subjective intentions. they can be evidence in certain cases of the meaning of the words of the original public meaning? of the original public meaning, they can be evidence of that, you don t follow subjective intention. original public meaning originalism, constitutional textualism with senator cruz referred to as constitutionalism or constitutionalist, all
14th amendment, equal protection clause. it says in the text equal protection. equal means equal as the supreme court said in strawder. the law shall be same for black and the white. brown v. board focuses on the text. there were raysi racist members of congress who didn t think it should apply in that way to certain aspects of public life. we don t, if you are doing, paying attention to the text, you don t take account of those subjective intentions, and nor is it proper as a general proposition to take account of the subjective intentions. they could be evidence in certain cases, the first amendment, for example, of the meaning of the words. of the original of the original public meanings. they could be evidence of that. but you don t follow the subjective intentions. so original public meaning, originalism, what i have referred to as
report as a journalist on what s in the darn papers. you re concerned there could be a bombshell like he told george w. bush you could never be indicted or have to face a subpoena, and if that came out it would change the game. you were in the room, go ahead. let me tell you something, this process is tortured and broken. we ve taken a position that until all documents, all information has been presented to the committee, the committee shouldn t consider it. it s a contradiction to last two years ago stall on garland, and now try to fast walk kavanaugh. it s a complete contradiction. what s in those documents that bear on this candidate s views on the issues of executive privilege, presidential power, issues that are at the heart of the consideration of how he would perform on the supreme court. let s put facts on it. when you look at the decisions that are out there, a lot of what is said is, well, they ll follow the law so don t worry about roe, or don t worry about brown v. boar
nominees not saying whether brown v. board is correctly decided. there will be a high bar. if they put an ideological bar with whom? there won t be. absolutely, there will be. which senators? collins, murkowski, the people you just mentioned. gorsuch. gorsuch too. gorsuch was nowhere near the extreme example. on the issues of roe and gay rights, on the issues of affirmative action, neil gorsuch is the perfect template to look for going forward. we don t have to guess here. there is a list of judges the president will pick from. in those list of judges you can read their opinions, you can read their writings before. there is an enormous amount of clarity among all of these people where they re going. and there s an enormous amount of clarity, 99 senators who are