Apparently Liberals/Democrats have decided that every judicial nominee IS entitled to an up or down vote in the Senate. I just saw a post (here) bashing Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) for holding up a vote on the judicial nomination of Janet Neff to become a federal trial judge in the Western District of Michigan. I've surmised that Brownback's main concern is that Neff will have a difficult time acting like a judge (and not like a legislator) if/when the homosexual "marriage" issue comes before her in light of reports that she traveled to Massachusetts to participate (she gave a homily, though that's rarely reported) in a same-sex "wedding" being conducted for a neighbor.
Given Liberal jurists' philosophy that judges need to interpret the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values, what would keep her from flat out asserting that our Constitution entitles people to have "marriage" mean whatever they want it to mean.
Hello world!
7 years ago
5 comments:
I don't know how people can think Sam Brownback is anti-gay. Would someone who is anti-gay, block a judicial nomination because the nominee is gay? I don't think so.
That's the first I'd heard about that particular qualification of Neff. But certainly a genderist would apply that value to advicing and consenting on judges.
My bad, I misread the post and the link was broken...I thought she had gone to Mass to get married.
But I'd imagine he would have opposed a candidate who had been married in Massachusetts. Besides, opposing a nominee because she went to her friends wedding, is still a sign of homophobia. I thought one of the arguments made consistently by "Originalist" judges was that it didn't matter what their personal feelings on an issue was, their job was to interpret the Constitution as written.
see: Justice Scalia
And that's the first I've heard that Neff is an Originalist.
Sorry, I fixed the link . . .
Post a Comment