Stabenow’s Gorsuch vote
My response to this article.
As a graduate student in public policy, a black woman, and a proud progressive, I know what freedom, opportunity and…www.detroitnews.com
First of all, Debbie Stabenow voted for Gorsuch in 2006. Now, I have read the constitution. There is nothing in there about abortion rights or LGBTQ rights. They may be rights to the minds of some and in some states but they are not constitutional rights. So, since they are not mentioned, these issues go to the states. In addition, a constitutional right can’t infringe on another constitutional right. The “so called” rights mentioned in this article do that. This is a free market system in the U.S., why would anyone think the constitution gives the government the right to tell companies what products they have to sell? The constitution was not written to lay out GOVERNMENT rights. The values described in this are Cortney Sanders values, they are not constitutional values. The mainstream for the American public would be a justice who’s ideology is somewhere between that of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor and Gorsuch is within that mainstream.
He is not within the mainstream of Cortney Sanders. Thankfully Cortney Sanders does not represent the American public. Her justice would probably be outside of the mainstream. It is not uncommon for justices to be recommended to the president by legal organizations and think tanks. Both sides do it. Legislating from the bench is saying the the federal government all of a sudden has the right to regulate marriage and not the states. It is saying that the states do not have the right to regulate abortion. It is saying that intrastate commerce is actually intrastate commerce. It is saying that a government penalty is actually a tax. It is saying that when the government specifically called for state exchanges, the IRS could do the job of a state even though they were not legally allowed to. Gorsuch is an originalist which means that he would advocate for the federal judges having less power and the states and people having more power and that is better for everyone. The ideas uttered in this ridiculous article come from a false view that the constitution is living. If we want to change the meaning, we have to add amendments. A judge can’t simply make up a new meaning of the constitution. What would be the point of having a constitution if that were the case? Your employer can’t just all of a sudden say the the dollars agreed upon in your job contract are actually Canadian dollars and you’ll get paid less as a result. Both you and your employer need to agree on a change in the contract. Same with the Federal government. The federal government and states must both agree to change the constitution. Cortney needs to ask for her money back from the University of Michigan or she needs to start paying attention in class. This is the worst interpretation that I have ever read and the graduate student that wrote it should be utterly embarrassed for her lack of knowledge on the subject.