Search
  • Buzin Law

HOW THE MODERATOR FLUBBED THE SUPREME COURT QUESTION



Wednesday night’s debate started off with the following question:

First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders’ words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?

Look, it’s clear from Article II of the Constitution that the President shall nominate judges of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the candidates’ opinions on issues that could potentially come before that Court are certainly relevant.

But, here’s what’s troubling about the question. The President shouldn’t be appointing judges in the hopes of guiding the country in any particular way. Instead, he or she should be looking for nominees who are (1) qualified to do the job; and (2) who will uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The second part of the question – how the Constitution should be interpreted – is absolutely outside the scope of the President’s powers.

The premise of the question assumes that the President should have a say on how the Court rules, even though the Judicial Branch is separate to ensure proper checks and balances. Because politics has intruded on almost all decisions in Washington, we’ve reached the point where the premise of the moderator’s questions is presumed to be correct. This is unfortunate.

Here is how we would have phrased the question:

There are no specific qualifications for Supreme Court Justices, including age, education, profession, native-born citizenship, or even a legal background. Because the next President will almost certainly have at least one appointment — and potentially two or three – what qualifications will you look for in a nominee?

This phrasing takes away the President’s invisible hand in pushing an agenda for the Supreme Court and gives back the impartiality that the Court should have.

(For a full transcript of the debate, see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/)

0 views

Request a Free Case Review

No Cost, No Obligation

111 Broadway, Suite 1204

New York, NY 10006

Tel: (212) 879-8100

Fax: (212) 879-8100

DISCLAIMER: This website contains "attorney advertising". The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. A signed retainer agreement is necessary before we will represent you in any case. All cases are different and "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome". Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

© 2020 by Buzin Law

  • Untitled-1
  • LinkedIn
  • White Facebook Icon
  • White Twitter Icon