Federal judges who use the Constitution as their guide in adjudicating cases are not well suited for our modern "progressive" era, MSNBC's Katy Tur suggested Wednesday.
While discussing President Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Tur asked if his "originalist" view of the Constitution is actually a strike against him.
"Based on where Americans stand on the issues, and Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years, do you think it’s appropriate to continue to take such a strict originalist view of the Constitution given it's 2018 and not 1776?" Tur asked.
Tur's reference to 1776 is actually when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Constitution wasn't ratified until 12 years later, in 1788.
Here's a transcript of the exchange:
TUR: “I do want to start with you, J.D. Based on where Americans stand on the issues, and Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years, do you think it’s appropriate to continue to take such a strict originalist view of the Constitution given it’s 2018 and not 1776?”
VANCE: “Well, I don’t know that Americans have become more Progressive on everything. Certainly times have changed since 1776, but how you interpret the Constitution is ultimately different from what policy preferences you want. And this is a point that conservatives make pretty often about the Supreme Court, that whether you want the laws to move in a Progressive or a conservative direction, the Supreme Court is a separate institution with separate mandate under our constitutional structure. So, for example, if you want abortion to be outlawed or you want abortion to not be outlawed, that is a question and there’s an open debate about whether that question should be decided by the Supreme Court or that question should be decided by voters and by state legislatures and federal legislatures. That is a question to me that’s about constitutional structure, not so much about policy preferences.”