Senate Confirmation Hearing: Dereich for Supreme Court Justice (Confirmed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First confirmation under the new rules, gentlemen, we'll start with 72 hours to question the nominee.

[tmthforu94]

Hello Dereich! Congratulations on your nomination. I'll start out with a few questions:

- Overall, how would you describe your judicial philosophy?

- What is your view of the role of regional and federalism in our constitutional system? How will your view affect rulings concerning whether federal laws pre-empt regional laws or causes of action?

- Do you believe that courts should show compassion? Do you believe there is a difference between doing justice and applying the law?

- How important is the emphasis on precedent in Supreme Court decision-making? Under what circumstances would you vote to overturn a previous ruling by the Supreme Court?

- Do you believe in term-limits for Supreme Court justices? If confirmed, will you self-impose a term limit on yourself?

Thank you! I look forward to hearing your answers.

[Dereich]

I'm on vacation at the moment and my internet access isn't the greatest. I'll respond to Tmth and other questions that arise as thoroughly as possible as soon as I can.

[This account no longer in use.]

For obvious reasons, I'd prefer a much more socially libertarian nominee, and I'm sure Leinad could find one. With that said, however, beggars can't be choosers, and getting a nominee as moderate as Dereich under a Federalist doesn't happen all the time.

[Classic Conservative]

He's not that socially conservative more like moderate is better. He's like .70 social

[Lumine]

Period for questioning extended while Dereich answers.

[Blair]

I'll be waiting for Dereich to return before giving him a drilling

[Dereich]

Sorry friends. I'm back and able to answer your questions.

- Overall, how would you describe your judicial philosophy?

In this context I believe being a textualist is the only right answer. The Constitution was written less than one year ago; its a much more specific document than that of the US and the intent of the drafters is pretty clear or at least discernible. As to broadness, I almost always favor minimalist rulings tailored to the specific circumstance. The Court is an unelected and secretive body; it should leave the crafting of rules and laws to the legislature or the People.

I also think I should address Senator Smith's post here. I very very firmly believe that the Court is not the Senate. The Court should be (or at least should aspire to be) an impartial arbiter of the law; court interpretation should be based on what the law was actually supposed to mean, not the whims of the individual justices. If an issue comes before the Court that is against my personal views but has good legal foundation I won't be standing against it.
 
- What is your view of the role of regional and federalism in our constitutional system? How will your view affect rulings concerning whether federal laws pre-empt regional laws or causes of action?

It's an interesting question, to be sure. Nearly my whole Atlasian carrier has been in the regions and I personally would prefer the regions to the federal government but from a judicial viewpoint I can't quite do that. Actually, looking through the regional thread in from the ConCon the answer would appear to be neither. Both the Senate and the Regions were "granted powers"; sovereignty clearly doesn't exclusively lie with either body. I suppose that leaves it with the voters; if there was no provision in the Constitution specifying whether regional or federal laws were pre-eminent I'd ask which law better reflected the popular will.


- Do you believe that courts should show compassion? Do you believe there is a difference between doing justice and applying the law?

The Court is essentially glorified a group unelected bureaucrats set up to interpret laws and rules established by people with a lot more popular legitimacy than the Court itself. I'd find myself very hesitant to overrule a law that was presumably made for a good reason. Unless the specific case was against the letter but not the spirit of the law I'd follow what was written. And yes, under this view sometimes justice wouldn't be done, but its not the role of the Court to cram its view of justice down the public's throat. A just society starts with just people and just laws; the Court is there to ensure the spirit of those laws is fulfilled.

- How important is the emphasis on precedent in Supreme Court decision-making? Under what circumstances would you vote to overturn a previous ruling by the Supreme Court?

Presumably previous court rulings were made for sound reasons with basis in common law, statute, and the Constitution. I would normally assume these reasons hold true and if they apply to the specific circumstance I'd stick with them. If those rulings were NOT made for those reasons or if the law (or to a very limited extent society) has changed, then the law should be reevaluated.

- Do you believe in term-limits for Supreme Court justices? If confirmed, will you self-impose a term limit on yourself?

No. Term limits for justices in my view solidifies both the impression and the reality of the Court being a political instead of a deliberative body. My "term limit" will be whenever I or the Senate decide that I am no longer able to adequately do my job.

[Blair]

I appreciate Dereichs' answers on the role of the court, and am glad that he has thought deeply about these.

I'd be interested in hearing about your views on social issues-something that the court has always ruled on.

Whats your view on the constitutionality (if that's the right word) of abortion in Atlasia?

Do you believe that the decision in Obergefell v Hodges (2015) was the correct ruling?

Lastly a rather hypothetical question- the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v Texas outlawed anti-sodomy laws in 14 states. Ignoring your own personal views, how would you have ruled on this case?

[Dereich]

I had a long, beautiful response all typed out and ready when my new apartment's stupid wifi messed up getting rid of it all. So life goes.

Whats your view on the constitutionality (if that's the right word) of abortion in Atlasia?

"If that's the right word" is the right way to think of it. The Atlasian constitution doesn't protect the right to privacy used in Roeto justify abortion rights. When I look past the talking points, my interpretation of the debate is that its really an argument about when life begins. If it begins at birth, abortion should be justified. If it begins earlier than that, abortion becomes virtually unjustifiable. Personally I think it does begin before life; if I as a legislator or citizen had to vote on an abortion bill I'd vote pro-life. As a member of the Court? I'd have to see strong constitutional (and possibly scientific) evidence to justify a vote either for banning or allowing it generally.

Basically, my conclusion is that it is legal (as everything is) until it is banned by either the regional or federal governments. I'd wait to hear arguments as to federalism and which rights were involved before concluding anything on specific bans.

Do you believe that the decision in Obergefell v Hodges (2015) was the correct ruling?

It was the right ruling but done in the wrong way. Here I went in to a long rant on current Due Process case law; I'd rather not reprint it unless you want to know more. Essentially, the way its used now especially by Justice Kennedy, a violation of due process can be used to justify literally anything as fundamental. For the same reason the Court eventually got rid of Lochner I'm against the use of due process. There's a very good argument between young(er) Scalia and the libertarian law professor Richard Epstein here as to whether the Right should use Due Process to invalidate economic laws such as minimum wage under "freedom to contract". Instead, the court should have done one of three things.

1. Done nothing and let the People's representatives sort it out as they are bound to do, as the Conservatives said.

2. Brought back the Privileges and Immunities clause and used it to justify the action, as Justice Thomas wanted.

3. Used the Equal Protection clause and declared homosexuals a protected class. This would require much stronger justification from legislatures when making laws that disprivilege homosexuals and could have been used to invalidate DOMA and the state legislatures that have passed anti-gay laws.

By not going all the way and doing 3, the Court chose a path that was confusing, muddled case law further, and set up a whole new round of lawsuits on other laws that prejudice homosexuals. I see no reason for "marriage" to be FUNDAMENTAL to liberty as due process was supposed to require; it was a dumb copout so Kennedy could give gay marriage but didn't have to declare gays protected. I wouldn't have joined the majority in Obergefell.

Lastly a rather hypothetical question- the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v Texas outlawed anti-sodomy laws in 14 states. Ignoring your own personal views, how would you have ruled on this case?

Ugh, you throw another Kennedy Due Process case at me. I would have invalidated Lawrence under the Equal Protection Clause; the majority even mentions it and had the recent example of Romer v. Evans to follow up on. This would mean I would be joining Justice O'Conner in using a rational basis plus test; if there was no legitimate government interest (using SERIOUS analysis, not the hyper deference normal Rational Basis gets) for the Government's action in banning same-sex sodomy that isn't just attacking a protected class it should be overturned.

[tmthforu94]

I am very satisfied with the nominee's answers and will vote to confirm.

[tmthforu94]

I motion for a final vote.

[Lumine]

A final vote is open, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Goldwater]

AYE

[This account no longer in use.]

Aye

[Pingvin]

Aye

[Blair]

Nay


I have a great deal of respect for Dereich, and thank him for his knowledgeable and passionate approach to the questions put forward- and I'm sure he'll serve as a dedicated member of the court. I cannot however in good faith vote for a Supreme Court Judge who'd in my view pose a risk to the right to a safe, and legal abortion

[tmthforu94]

The nominee has enough votes for confirmation. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes

[Prince of Salem]

Aye