David Davenport: Judges Should Respect The Constitution More Than Precedent
Below is your personal RSS feed link, generated just for you - please do not share it!
https://townhall.com/podcastfeed/vip/townhallreview?m=
You can get your link from the Podcast show page, which you can paste into the listening app of your choice. For most apps, you can do this by clicking "Add a show by URL" or "Add by RSS feed". You can find app-specific instructions below.
Apple Podcasts
- Open your Library
- Tap or click Add a show by URL
- Paste the link above
Google Podcasts
- Tap or click Activity on the bottom right of your screen
- Scroll to Subscriptions on the top and then tap the 3-dot menu
- Tap or click Add by RSS feed
- Paste the link above
Below the surface of Senate hearings on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court is a tug of war that should be brought to light. It is a battle between a judge’s commitment to follow judicial precedents versus faithfulness to the Constitution itself.
Federal courts tack right and left, as Republican and Democratic presidents appoint their judges. More liberal judges increase federal power and conservative judges restrain it. But when liberal courts take the law to the left, they set precedents that conservative judges feel obligated to follow, even when the decisions were not constitutionally sound.
There is value in precedent—without it the legal system would become unpredictable and unstable. But more important is following the Constitution itself. We need judges who will do both. But we don’t want slaves to precedent—whether or not that precedent is faithful to the Constitution.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
