Ed Straker writes at American Thinker:
Talk show host and constitutional scholar Mark Levin has been talking a lot this week about the philosophical arguments that are being made about Supreme Court nominees. Levin made the point that liberals are insisting that a nominee promise to slavishly follow stare decisis, or to obediently obey past cases that they like, such as Roe v. Wade.
But Levin made the point that if Supreme Court justices only need to blindly follow past decisions, we could easily put monkeys on the court instead of people.
Levin points out that some Supreme Court precedents are not ones to be blindly followed:
1) Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans en masse.
2) Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld "separate but equal" segregation for blacks. Levin points out that Plessy was "settled law" for longer than Roe has been.
3) The Dred Scott case, where a slave who was in a free state was returned to his master.
"Levin says that Justices are human and can make mistakes," Straker continues. "That's why picking a justice who will blindly follow precedent is not the way to go."
"Instead, Levin says the President should select a nominee who will vow to follow the Constitution," Straker writes. "An originalist who follows the Constitution will then uphold precedent which was decided properly, and overrule precedents which weren't."