That hasn't been your consistent position. You've presented as a hardliner on immigration, even saying that you support reducing legal immigration based on "objective measures."
It has been my consistent position. I've written as much multiple times over the years here. If I had my way, I would probably amend the Constitution to authorize the federal government to implement border controls and immigration policy. I would definitely amend the Constitution to authorize the federal government to tax sources of emissions of various aerosols (ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide) in proportion to their volume of emissions. I would also ratify a similar amendment for water pollution and another for the creation of protected lands.
To summarize, I'm an "environmentalist" and "supporter of immigration policy" yet I'm confident the federal government is not authorized to do the things I would like it to do in those domains.
Well, you've arrogated the sole right to determine Constitutionality, rejecting precedent, which amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?
Really weird thing to write.
Believing that the Supreme Court got an issue wrong is not even close to the same as rejecting judicial review. I'm sure you disagree with the decision in
United States v
Morrison---that is, you probably think that the civil penalties included in the "Violence Against Women Act" were constitutional (you would be wrong, but that's a separate issue). Of course, that doesn't mean you "reject judicial review". It means you reject a particular use of the power of judicial review. Of course, most SCOTUS cases aren't even judicial review cases (i.e., the cases do not involve the potential to overturn an existing law), so to say that disagreeing with a decision is the same as "rejecting judicial review" just doesn't make sense.
So I think you were confusing
stare decisis with judicial review. Even then, your statement is inaccurate. Rejecting a particular precedent is not the same as rejecting the doctrine of precedent. Here, I will
quote the great Justice Thomas:
"I read everything I could get my hands on on stare decisis. The theory is all over the place. Justice Goldberg's theory was basically it's a ratchet---as you improve civil liberties, those strict rules of stare decisis apply. But when they need to overrule cases in order to do what he thinks is the right thing, then a loose set of rules for stare decisis apply. Then we have Justice Brandeis. He has his rules on stare decisis. But he overruled Swift v Tyson, which was a 96-year-old precedent! Then what do you do with Plessy v Ferguson? So you have lots of precedents out there that have been changed. You have Justice Brennan re-doing the political question doctrine in Baker v Carr. I'm not saying he overruled anything but boy, it didn't look like it used to look. When people get what they want, then they start yelling 'stare decisis' as though that is supposed to stop you, like the boogeyman or something. I think that the Constitution itself---the written document---is the ultimate stare decisis. Caleb Nelson has a nice piece---I'm not saying it's totally right but Caleb is very thoughtful---on stare decisis. He makes a point. If the statute allows you to choose between 'A' and 'B' and you would, on a clean slate, choose 'B' but the Court has already chosen 'A', then you give that stare decisis. The choices were there and the Court has chosen, so you don't change it. But if the Court has chosen 'C' when the statute gave you 'A' and 'B', then that is clearly erroneous.
I haven't seen any of his plays so I'll pass on addressing him specifically, but deluded is likely if he claims to be a consistent originalist.
I was referring to the Professor of Law at Duke University, not the playwright.
