Convicting the Constitution
iStock.com/Bill Oxford
The battle to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch wasn’t about Neil Gorsuch. It was about the philosophy of judicial restraint for which he stands.
By Andrew Miiller • April 13
The United States Constitution is on trial. For 30 years, the nation has been cross-examining its founding document. At the defendant’s table are constitutional originalists. They testify that natural rights, individual liberties, limited government, federalism and the Constitution’s other principles are as valid now as ever. At the plaintiff’s table are judicial activists. They claim that the Constitution’s principles are out-of-date and that judges must redefine the Constitution to fit current social conditions.
This legal battle began in earnest in June 1987. That year, U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork, a highly respected judge, to become Supreme Court justice. Within 45 minutes of the nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy took the floor and began demonizing the nominee in a shocking way. Why? Judge Bork was one of the nation’s fiercest and most articulate defenders of the Constitution as it is written. Senator Kennedy and his affiliates considered this a ghastly thing.
https://www.thetrumpet.com/15676-convicting-the-constitution
