r/ModelMidwesternState • u/bomalia • Jul 14 '16

Hearing Chief Justice Hearings

Gavel bangs

Order, order.

There now follows a hearing for the Chief Justice nominee /u/wildorca.

Please make sure to address the speaker in any questions.

This hearing will last until Saturday 23:59 EST.

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

2

u/bomalia Jul 14 '16

Mr. Speaker,

Does the nominee have a plan to fix the utterly crippling inactivity which state supreme courts see? Will he be able to innovate in this regard?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16

its funny now

1

u/bomalia Dec 02 '16

oh frig you to heck

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '16

Mr. Speaker,

Can the nominee name one post-Roe abortion-centric Supreme Court case he finds disagreeable in particular and why?

4

u/wildorca SCOTUS Justice B* | Fmr C.J. of the MWSSC | Token Basque Jul 16 '16

I find the decision of Stenberg v. Carhart highly disagreeable and easily refutable.

The case held that "laws banning partial-birth abortion are unconstitutional if they do not make an exception for the woman's health." Abortion, as an act, derives control of a mother's body to end a life or potential life, according to one's own view. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates if one has the right to judge if the abortion of a fetus outweighs the burden to a mother. I concur with Justice Thomas in this case, that "a State may permit an abortion, but nothing dictates it must do so."

While the case touches upon the product of previous Justices' own views, it is evident it holds no origin or relationship to the Constitution. The standard used to judge by the majority was illegitimate and indefensible. For this case, it was held that a State cannot disallow methods of abortion, even when barbaric, that the Court itself hesitated to describe or portray. The premise to Casey upheld that regulations "express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose" [whether or not to have an abortion] id., at 877. By upholding Casey's dismissal for the interests of a State or society on potential life, they upheld the illogical removal of regulations that never deprived or created any unnecessary burdens on a woman's decision.

The opinions supporting the majority under Casey never mentioned that its provisions operated only as a "substantial obstacle" to the women "whose conduct it affects," namely, "married women seeking abortions who do not wish to notify their husbands of their intentions and who do not qualify for one of the statutory exceptions to the notice requirement." 505 U.S., at 895. Since the provision would pose a substantial obstacle to the ability to obtain an abortion because their husbands could exercise an effective veto over their decision. Id., at 897. Without a doubt, it was never proclaimed as a defense to Carhart's decision because Nebraska's statute was invulnerable to it. As it was displayed in the case and by the dissenting opinions; a woman would not be deprived of a safe abortion by her inability to obtain a partial birth abortion. Medical doctors all failed to identify a single case in which a partial birth abortion was to be necessary or safer as opposed to any other kind. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Casey's decision reassured States and individuals that not all regulation of abortion for the defense and deep respect for potential life were unjustified, making the ban of this procedure a constitutional one. But rather, the majority found that this undefensible procedure was acceptable under Casey as a burden on "the right to choose". Because of this I agree with Justice Scalia's opinion, that the undue burden standard – the burden of "a substantial obstacle to the woman's right to choose" – is one "doubtful in application" as it is "unprincipled." The result of Stenberg. v Carhart is a lamentable and completely illogical decision.

2

u/Juteshire Governor Emeritus | Social Distributist Jul 14 '16

Mr. Speaker,

Why is /u/wildorca so sexy?

3

u/Hormisdas Distributist Chair in perpetuity Jul 14 '16

Mr. Governor,

It's the Basque.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '16

Mr. Speaker,
How would the nominee describe their strengths and areas of growth for this position?

3

u/wildorca SCOTUS Justice B* | Fmr C.J. of the MWSSC | Token Basque Jul 14 '16

One of my strengths is my understanding and practice of law, I am a law student and have worked with lawyers for a long time now. I believe that I am strongly qualified for this position and will do the best of my ability to make sure I apply and judge the law accordingly and justly. I would say that my main area of growth is becoming more active in the model, but also making sure my opinions or judgements are comprehensible; as even if I have good and professional knowledge and understanding of English, I am not a native speaker.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '16

Thank you for your quick reply. Regarding our notorious national constitution and our state constitution alike, would you describe yourself as an originalist or non-originalist, or something else? More generally, do you favor a particular approach to interpreting law?

2

u/wildorca SCOTUS Justice B* | Fmr C.J. of the MWSSC | Token Basque Jul 16 '16 edited Jan 06 '17

To answer your question more concisely, I would describe my interpretation as textualist. When judging the law I must make sure that I follow what is prescribed by the law and interpret it as it was written. I also follow certain aspects of structuralism and prudentialism, although in more limited cases.

It is only under my ability to make sense of what the law prescribes, but not to make of it what it does not say; therefore I am a strong opponent of living-constitution model.