interracial marriage, the right to an abortion, the contraception. trading as chattel property? i don t quite remember the basis for the dred scott opinion, but i will trust you the fact is that you could use substantive due process to justify basically any result. whether it is conservative, liberal, libertarian, what ever you like to call. it s just a mode of analysis by the court to allow the court substitute its opinion for the elected representatives of the people. would you agree? the court has identified standards for the determination of rights under the 14th
because we re all concerned about the legitimacy of our institutions and particularly, i would say the institution of our judiciary. how does a judge, when approaching your desigds, how do you try to avoid being seen as a policymaker by embracing doctrines like substantive due process which essentially gives judges cart blanch to do whatever they want? well, senator, i ve not had that particular situation. i have a methodology that is designed to avoid my importation of policy perspectives. the judges are constrained in our system. that s part of the constitutional design. and so, in all cases i am
the right to an abortion. contraception. treating the slaves as chattal property? i don t quite remember the basis for the dread scott opinion but i ll trust you that the fact is, is it not, that you can use substantive due process to justify any result, whether conservative, liberal, libertarian, whatever you would like to call, it s a mode of analysis by the court that allows the court to substitute its opinion for the elective representatives of the people and would you agree? the court has identified standards for the determination of rights under the 14th amendment substantive due
on the supreme court a have decided we discovered a new right and it shall be the law of the land and no legislature can passby law that conflicts. what other rights are out there or can you say? senator, i can t say. it s a hypothatical that i m not in a position to comment on. there the rights that the supreme court has recognized as substantive due process rights are established in its case law. your honor, this is not a trick question. i understand. i m not in a position to speak to the can you understand why
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right, and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area w