Posted on 03/04/2020 8:35:51 AM PST by NRx
The court is driven by precedent, which almost ensures a general drift in a certain direction over time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which is why I say we need two appointments to ensure a conservative court.
Kavanaugh is overly enamored of precedent.
Its rare that a appointed justice doesn’t “evolve” left.
>>
“...found that the Texas law had no medical benefits and placed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortion. “
>>
>
Does the U.S. givernment have a medical benefits requirement in the law....?
>
No word on the ‘medical benefit’, let alone ‘burden’ (constitutional or not), denied the ABORTED (Life being a struggle)...
“I also think Bush knew he was screwing us over and nominated him on purpose.”
His initial second choice of Harriet Miers was worse. Even the establishment Republicans rebelled.
The Chief Justice is simply one of the nine “seats” on the Supreme Court. When the Chief Justice dies or resigns, he is replaced by a candidate nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If the President nominated someone who is already an Associate Justice, he would have to nominate another candidate for the Associate Justice’s seat, which usually isn’t worth the effort.
>
To tell the truth, President Reagan wasn’t very successful either. Antonin Scalia was great...
>
Ah, the late, ‘great’ Scalia that gave us the mental musings via Heller as: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” or “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” and “that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons”.
That in spite of the simple, plain English of the 2nd: “....shall NOT be infringed.”
Scalia == “great” my @ss.
So the folks at SCOTUS Blog (which is far left and pro-establishment) have a different take on Roberts’ questions and are not nearly as optimistic for the Abortion ghouls as this headline suggests.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/argument-analysis-justices-grapple-with-louisiana-abortion-law/
Roberts seems to be trying to find a State by State approach to apply Whole Women’s Health and remember he joined the right side in that case.
In stark contrast to the rights that the states expressly protected by ratifying the Bill of Rights and other rights amendments to the Constitution, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the murder of unborn children as a “right.”
In other words, the politically correct, Democratic and RINO vote-winning “right” to murder unborn children was scandalously legislated from the bench by post-FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices imo.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added]." —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
"Beware of English-to-English translations of the Constitution!" —me
Regarding post-17th Amendment ratification activist justices attacking the Louisiana law, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty after Wickard.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Remember in November!
MAGA, now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.
Chief Justice Roberts; the very best Chief Justice the Deep State/Left could buy.
I've got about 80 pages of invective that I'm withholding until we know.
Abortion is now wrapped around volumes of legalese but it always will be MURDER.
Principled conservatives (e.g. William Rehnquist, Samuel Alito) or originalists (e.g. Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas) don’t “evolve”, unprincipled political opportunists do. Which ones do the Establishment Republicans prefer? I believe they prefer a center-right Court, which is good for business, but not an originalist one, which would deconstruct the Federal Government.
nothing like having that adoption scam in the democrats pocket to pull Roberts’ strings.
I love when blackmail is obvious.
If Roberts rules using this rationale, pro-life groups should begin an onslaught of court challenges to standard state-mandated medical requirements which don’t describe an explicit medical benefit - citing this ruling as “binding.”
Here’s the secret no one wants to admit: Republicans would rather be able to rail about abortion and use it as an electoral issue than actually do anything about it, thereby both losing it as a campaign issue and facing the backlash that would result from the pro-abortion side. Same thing with health care.
The only solace of Shrubs is that we didn’t get President Gore or Kerry. Good Lord could you imagine?
I told you, Roberts has shown he cannot be Trusted. He’s a plant... Need to replace at lest 1 or two more justices to being construtionalists... Roberts showed in his ObamaCare Ruling he’s a fraud.
agree!
But that’s what I seem to have noticed over then years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.