The following is verbatim personal commentary found on Facebook at Vass Political Commentary on July 9, 2018. This commentary responds to the speech by NY Senator Charles Schumer as he spoke from the floor of the Senate. The issue at hand is “settled law” and its potential consequences.
I find it curious that currently Sen. Charles Schumer is on the floor of the Senate, demanding that the next Supreme Court of US (SCOTUS) nominee follow “settled law”. That laws already passed are sacrosanct – especially the ones that he likes.
But the question must then be asked, what is “settled law”? Prior to the 13th and 14th Amendments, law was “settled”. Before the 19th Amendment, the law was “settled”.
What about the 163 years before US v Miller in 1939. I’m sure that Sen. Schumer would think that this decision wasn’t settled prior to this decision.
Would Sen. Schumer, and the Dems that he leads, have felt that Dread Scott v Sanford was “settled law” and never reviewed or reconsidered? Imagine the impact of that, if since 1857 it was upheld. Or maybe Duncan v Louisiana for a more recent change of settled law affecting tens of millions since 1968. How about Ambach v Norwick in 1979, is that “settled”?
The fact is that claiming ANY law as “settled” is both stupid (not ignorant) and dangerous. I do believe that the Constitution should not be a means of legislating from the bench, but to not review existing law and decisions because of a previous decision is insanity.
It doesn’t even need to be addressed that such erroneous statements, made in the vacuum of an actual nominee having been named, is just ginning up partisan political supporters.
Finally, to claim that laws are “settled” is merely a tactic of promoting emotion for partisan political gain without regard for the consequences of such action.