Judicial nominee is “absolutely unqualified.” The gist of WIBC radio host Tony Katz’s view is anyone who believes the Constitution can be interpreted to change over time is “absolutely unqualified” to be a judge. 1) This is in context of hearings on SCOTUS nominee. 1/7

2) To be “qualified” is “to possess the necessary qualifications.” (Black’s Law Dic, pocket ed.) A person’s judicial philosophy usu is not part of her/his qualifications. Pres Biden’s nominee to the Court, Judge Kitanji Brown Jackson, has the ABA’s “well qualified,” i.e., highest rating. 2/7

She graduated magna cum laude fr Harvard undergrad & cum laude from Harvard Law School. She has been a public defender and, as a judge, has great respect of the legal community. 3) The idea that someone is “absolutely unqualified” because of judicial philosophy is absolute... 3/7

bunk. Mr Katz actually advocates for one judicial philosophy, “original intent,” i.e., what was intended in 1787 when The Constitution was drafted. But whose intent? The 36 white, male landowners who were delegates & signed the document? The 39, total, who were present? 4/7

What about the 55 delegates who, at one time or another, attended the Convention? Then there were 18 (or 19) others chosen to be delegates who did not attend, some for specific reasons (“I smelt a rat” in Philadelphia was Patrick Henry’s reason for absence). What weight to give... 5/7

their views? Then there was Rhode Island, which sent no delegates. James Madison, called by some the “Father of the Constitution,” believed the intent of delegates to the State ratification conventions should hold sway. But how? More will be written tomorrow. 6/7

I’m Mark Small: GOP candidate for Indiana House District 86, proud to be progressive, pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-civil rights, in the tradition of the founding of the Grand Old Party. I approve of this blog. Hell, I wrote it. 7/7