Jurisprudence Questions for Judicial Nominees That Are Actually Interesting

Jay SchweikertSo far, the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings are proceeding in the way most people probably expected. Judge Barrett is confidently and calmly discussing her approach to judging, ably explaining past comments and decisions, and — in accordance with the long‐​standing practice of prior nominees — refusing to give commitments or comments about particular issues or cases. And the Senators are largely using the hearing to make political speeches. Democrats have mostly made policy arguments in support of the Affordable Care Act, criticized President Trump, and asked case‐​specific questions they knew Judge Barrett would never answer. Republicans, in turn, have asserted that religious liberty is important and asked fairly banal questions that mostly amount to “Judge Barrett, do you agree judges should interpr et the law as written, or should they ignore the law and impose their own policy preferences?”Given this state of affairs, I  tend to agree with my colleagueIlya Shapiro that confirmation hearings no longer serve any valuable purpose, and they should probably be abandoned. While these hearings haven ’t been as bad as they could have been — Democrats have, to their credit, mostly avoided character‐​driven attacks on Judge Barrett’s faith — they’re not providing any useful information we didn’t already know. And given the case‐ and issue‐​specific questions that dominate the se hearings, I imagine they undermine judicia...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs