Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; justiceseeker93; campaignPete R-CT

Oh I don’t know.

Dred Scott, Roe V. Wade, NFIB V. Sebelius (Obamacare 2012), all pretty radical and unsupported by the Constitution. Various decisions upholding FDR’s marxist programs were bad as well.

Roe led to you know, deaths, so.....


11 posted on 06/30/2015 5:03:18 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Impy
From the article: see above.

* The radical result. I could be persuaded to the contrary, but the case has me thinking it may be the most radical in Supreme Court history. An obvious reason is the result: The Court constitutionalized a pop-definition that didn’t exist 20 years ago. Speaking jurisprudentially (although not morally), this was a much greater departure than such widely-criticized Substantive Due Process cases as Dred Scott, Lochner v. New York, or Roe v. Wade.

FWIW, Dr. Natelson is a renowned relatively conservative Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer

12 posted on 06/30/2015 5:06:44 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Impy; xzins; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; justiceseeker93; campaignPete R-CT

Kind of hard to beat Scott v. Sanford or Roe v. Wade (BTW, Dred Scott was the first use of “substantive due process” by SCOTUS, and Roe was the discredited theory’s widest application, at least prior to Obergefell) in the amount of evil that led to it or that was caused by it, but I think that the most egregiously ridiculous SCOTUS case ever was Eisenstadt. Prior to Griswold, many states prohibited the use of contraception by anyone, but in Griswold the Court struck down Connecticut’s ban *as applied to married couples* because marriage was such a slecial institution and marital privacy was the most important thing in the wirld, etc. So some states that previously had banned birth control now limited their ban to unmarried people, who would not have that magical “marital privacy” interest that had forced the Warren Court to strike down CT’s law. So an unmarried couple sued, and SCOTUS declared that law unconstitutional as a denial of EQUAL PROTECTION for unmarried couples! The state that had been for ed by SCOTUS to permit married couples to use contraception now was deemed to be discriminating in favor of married couples and against unmarried couples when it limited its contraceptive ban to unmarried couples. You can’t make this shi’ite up. Look up the case, it’s called Eisenstadt, but I’m too lazy to look up its full name.


18 posted on 06/30/2015 5:54:53 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson