I keep thinking there is a flip side to what the Court has done. By ignoring precedent and the concept of stare decisis, the Court weakens its own legacy and the future of its decisions.
Future Courts should feel no obligation to respect the decisions of the Roberts Court.
This provides some hope that some of the harm done by this Court can be undone.
It’s obviously not a great way for the law to be determined with precedent having limited value. That is the path this Court has set the country on.
It may well be that Roberts envisions a time where court alignment shifts, and therefore the power of the court has to be limited for the foreseeable future. If precedent has limited value, then the court cannot change as society changes.
In other words, he's burning bridges, because he believes himself the last trustworthy traveler on the road.
I wish that these people would stop being referred to as "Conservatives" the only validity to that tag is if you believe the Confederacy should have won the Civil War which is what all of these people are all about. But Phyllis Schlafly was correct, in order for the Confederates to become elected they need to be in coalition with xtian neurotics - who else would want them ? But there's also a growing group of psychopaths that hide their criminal conduct behind the various xtian neurotic causes mainly Right to Life. There is a Powerful negative psychology behind referring to any of these as "The Right" or as "Conservatives" as they use the courts to destroy by annihilating from memory Common Law and Equitable Principles and rendering everything subservient to text the Principle of Legality becomes incomprehensible. So what it actually devolves to is Carl Schmitt Nazi-fascism and in that regard the Democratics (the source of the Confederacy) are equal in blameworthiness. What's lost in all of this is the fabric of civil society it's beyond torn and frayed and that's their intent. To throw it away.
Conservatives suspect changes in law because of the tendency of unexpected results to occur more often then expected results when law is changed. Today's "conservatives" are radicals, people seeking to go back to some mythical societal root as a guideline for present society.
I don't understand your 1st sentence so I can't respond to it. If they're at all radical then they'd be looking for Principles and Rules they don't like, probably to avoid them in the hope they'll be lost, and forgotten - a corollary to what Brennan attributed to Rehnquist. Mythical social root you mean like King Arthur and the Round table ? 😏 Or Maybe water color story boards of Dick, Jane and Sally sans spot and puff, we don't want to make things too complex for them 😎🤘🏻
Well, Griswold, if I remember my law school days, established the right to privacy, and the theory of penumbral rights (correct me if I'm wrong on that; I learned that in the Middle Ages, when I had to write my law school notes on paper); and the mythical social root could be 'Fifties America, the time when men were men, courts were courts, and women were silent.
The traditional view is to declare the law - for example there is a Principle of Law that is being misconstrued, and there's an inconsistency in various decisions which proceeded with the intent to apply the same Principle correctly so it goes a long for a while and cases with similar factual circumstances are decided on an ad hoc basis which after some time results in a myriad of conflicting decisions - on the same rule or principle. So when it gets to the point where a number of courts begin to ask what is the law !! then someone has to decide how to settle it. In England and Wales there's a preference for Parliament to do so; but in the US that's difficult because you have all of these differing jurisdictions from 50 or more sources. So for instance ALI studies case law to find commonalties in the attempt to create some sort of guidance . Another example is factual situations you have "findings" of fact based on rules of evidence - or hopefully so - but sometimes the law is not correctly applied so there's de novo review but the same thing applies in common law which lead to an epistemology (?) that is referred to as declaring the law , so you're finding it and declaring it you're not creating it. Privacy has always been part of the common law.
Given the Supreme Court's Trump vs. Anderson decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is null until Congress passes enabling legislation (mandated, according to the majority, by Section 5) what prevents the majority from now taking a similar view of "substantive" due process in Section 1 of the same amendment? Where is the enabling legislation for substantive due process required by Section 5?
I trust that president Biden will follow up on his promise in his address last night to focus the remainder of his term taking actions to subdue the rouge court and give Kamala a good running start to finish the job when she is elected!
Any hope that ACB can at least continue in slowly transitioning into a *cough-cough* "moderate" seat, and occasionally bringing one other from the hard-right bench to join in a 5-4 decision when fundamental rights - other than abortion! - are decided?
So long as they are taking any case, let them take one declaring the USFSPA unconstitutional. That’s a decision literally 1000’s of victims of theft could get behind.
I’m curious, if the Supreme Court comes down with decisions ignoring precedent - Dobbs, Loper Bright, etc. etc. - can the lower courts take *that* as precedent and ignore, say, Dobbs or perhaps all those transgender cases?
It's kind of terrifying to see just how much power the judicial branch actually has, now that it is being wielded in a very focused, partisan way...
I keep thinking there is a flip side to what the Court has done. By ignoring precedent and the concept of stare decisis, the Court weakens its own legacy and the future of its decisions.
Future Courts should feel no obligation to respect the decisions of the Roberts Court.
This provides some hope that some of the harm done by this Court can be undone.
It’s obviously not a great way for the law to be determined with precedent having limited value. That is the path this Court has set the country on.
It may well be that Roberts envisions a time where court alignment shifts, and therefore the power of the court has to be limited for the foreseeable future. If precedent has limited value, then the court cannot change as society changes.
In other words, he's burning bridges, because he believes himself the last trustworthy traveler on the road.
Precedent is not a barrier to change; it's a mechanism which allows Kn interpretation to change as the society changes.
After they’re done with Obergefell, Lawrence, & Griswold, they’ll go after Loving & Brown.
Oh the irony of Thomas overturning Loving...
To be clear, I'm not saying that he won't. I'm saying that he won't see the irony.
I wish that these people would stop being referred to as "Conservatives" the only validity to that tag is if you believe the Confederacy should have won the Civil War which is what all of these people are all about. But Phyllis Schlafly was correct, in order for the Confederates to become elected they need to be in coalition with xtian neurotics - who else would want them ? But there's also a growing group of psychopaths that hide their criminal conduct behind the various xtian neurotic causes mainly Right to Life. There is a Powerful negative psychology behind referring to any of these as "The Right" or as "Conservatives" as they use the courts to destroy by annihilating from memory Common Law and Equitable Principles and rendering everything subservient to text the Principle of Legality becomes incomprehensible. So what it actually devolves to is Carl Schmitt Nazi-fascism and in that regard the Democratics (the source of the Confederacy) are equal in blameworthiness. What's lost in all of this is the fabric of civil society it's beyond torn and frayed and that's their intent. To throw it away.
Conservatives suspect changes in law because of the tendency of unexpected results to occur more often then expected results when law is changed. Today's "conservatives" are radicals, people seeking to go back to some mythical societal root as a guideline for present society.
I don't understand your 1st sentence so I can't respond to it. If they're at all radical then they'd be looking for Principles and Rules they don't like, probably to avoid them in the hope they'll be lost, and forgotten - a corollary to what Brennan attributed to Rehnquist. Mythical social root you mean like King Arthur and the Round table ? 😏 Or Maybe water color story boards of Dick, Jane and Sally sans spot and puff, we don't want to make things too complex for them 😎🤘🏻
Well, Griswold, if I remember my law school days, established the right to privacy, and the theory of penumbral rights (correct me if I'm wrong on that; I learned that in the Middle Ages, when I had to write my law school notes on paper); and the mythical social root could be 'Fifties America, the time when men were men, courts were courts, and women were silent.
The traditional view is to declare the law - for example there is a Principle of Law that is being misconstrued, and there's an inconsistency in various decisions which proceeded with the intent to apply the same Principle correctly so it goes a long for a while and cases with similar factual circumstances are decided on an ad hoc basis which after some time results in a myriad of conflicting decisions - on the same rule or principle. So when it gets to the point where a number of courts begin to ask what is the law !! then someone has to decide how to settle it. In England and Wales there's a preference for Parliament to do so; but in the US that's difficult because you have all of these differing jurisdictions from 50 or more sources. So for instance ALI studies case law to find commonalties in the attempt to create some sort of guidance . Another example is factual situations you have "findings" of fact based on rules of evidence - or hopefully so - but sometimes the law is not correctly applied so there's de novo review but the same thing applies in common law which lead to an epistemology (?) that is referred to as declaring the law , so you're finding it and declaring it you're not creating it. Privacy has always been part of the common law.
If you accept a definition of a court as a small, dead-end area.
and maybe, "women had children" would be more in keeping with the rest of the bon mot.
"The seven dissenting judges are a mix of judges trying, more or less, to do law." Sad commentary, really.
Question for Chris Geidner:
Given the Supreme Court's Trump vs. Anderson decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is null until Congress passes enabling legislation (mandated, according to the majority, by Section 5) what prevents the majority from now taking a similar view of "substantive" due process in Section 1 of the same amendment? Where is the enabling legislation for substantive due process required by Section 5?
What am I missing?
The Principle of Legality
I trust that president Biden will follow up on his promise in his address last night to focus the remainder of his term taking actions to subdue the rouge court and give Kamala a good running start to finish the job when she is elected!
I've always said that Griswold was the target, and Roe just the path to it.
Some people think Griswold is just about contraceptives; they need to wake up.
Perhaps it would be good to have a refresher on what it would mean to have Griswold and its guarantees removed from Kn law..
Insanity. And yeah, you warned folks.
They’re swinging for the fences, for sure. We’ll be back to Lochner before long.
Any hope that ACB can at least continue in slowly transitioning into a *cough-cough* "moderate" seat, and occasionally bringing one other from the hard-right bench to join in a 5-4 decision when fundamental rights - other than abortion! - are decided?
Another topic for another time.
Wishful thinking. Amy is only on the court as their obedient handmaiden.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/supreme-court-chevron-decision-explained
Teen Vogue needs a Law Dork guest piece.
Yes, but for what?
So long as they are taking any case, let them take one declaring the USFSPA unconstitutional. That’s a decision literally 1000’s of victims of theft could get behind.
I’m curious, if the Supreme Court comes down with decisions ignoring precedent - Dobbs, Loper Bright, etc. etc. - can the lower courts take *that* as precedent and ignore, say, Dobbs or perhaps all those transgender cases?
The sky's the limit.
Independent? I think not.
Huh?