Simple.
No.
In multiple floor speeches Tuesday and later in a closed lunch of GOP senators, Republicans said they want to hear more about whether she would uphold constitutional amendments guaranteeing equal protection under the law and the right to keep and bear arms, as well as whether the government can freely take land from one person and give it to another.
However you phrase the question, the answer will be "no."
And speaking of no, "The Party of No" should vote "no," even though they don't have enough members to make a difference in the outcome.
The single factor in determining which way to vote for any Supreme Court nominee is if they will uphold the Original Intent of the Constitution, not some sloppy "evolving" meaning garbage. They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to make it up, to have the Contitution mean whatever they want it to mean.
The citizens of the United States can support an Amendment if we want to evolve/expand on original meaning. A judge's job is to make sure that the law and Constitution are being strictly applied, not to make law or establish policy.
Posts
