Posted on 05/16/2019 6:58:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the things that separates leftists from normal people is their passion for political power. It is all-consuming. Among other things, this gives the Left the ability to plot and plan well in advance. This is clearly evidenced by leftists' patient march through American institutions. This was done not in one fell swoop, but step by step through the years. In solidifying their gains, the liberals are hyper-vigilant to any regression from what they've achieved in a way conservatives can only envy.
A recent little noticed U.S. Supreme Court decision illustrates this latter point. This was Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. In it, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution doesn't permit a state to be sued by a private party without its consent in the court of a different state. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the Franchise Board v. Hyatt overturned a 1979 Court decision to the contrary in Nevada v. Hall.
What puts more bite in the Franchise Board v. Hyatt decision is that Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion. Thomas is an originalist more than he is a conservative. A Court conservative, at least how liberals would define one, would honor the principle of stare decisis. This means that once a decision is made, it stays made. Thomas instead approaches cases according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. He believes if an initial decision was wrong per the original intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned.
This has the four Court liberal dissenters — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — in a tizzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Bingo!
My Lord...
Clarence Thomas is the best SCJ on the Court.
That's because you are not a Government Agent!
The mafia is envious of the government theives.
There is an inherent logical contradiction between the principle of stare decisis and the liberal view of a “Living Constitution”. Of course, that doesn’t stop the left....
There is an inherent logical contradiction between the principle of stare decisis and the liberal view of a “Living Constitution”. Of course, that doesn’t stop the left....
“This means that once a decision is made, it stays made.”
stare decisis
Jim Crowe
““The Right-Wing Supreme Court Is coming for Roe v. Wade,” is the headline on Splinter.com. The Liberals are “warning us” that Roe is in “mortal danger,”
I get the impression that nothing matters to a liberal more than sex without consequences.
“Precedence dictates there’ll be no SCOTUS picks during an election year.”
Incorrect. Only during a lame duck session, which Trump won’t be until 2023.
Alabama abortion law. Wrong bill at wrong time.
1) Roberts is NOT going to go down as the CJ who allowed “HIS” court to overturn RvW.
2) Incrementalism is how the liberals do it. Challenge anti-sodomy laws, then civil unions, then full blown gay marriage in state after state, sue, sue, sue.
3) Limit abortion to 24 weeks, then 22, then 20, the courts will find it harder and harder to allow abortion as the lawsuits keep shrinking the time in which an abortion can be had.
4) We know exceptions for rape and incest are huge loopholes, but they still force the courts to accept some restriction, its the nose under the tent.
Roberts will find a way to shoot this down. RBG existence has nothing to do with this. If this comes before the court and she is gone, Roberts will definitely rule against it making it a 4-4 vote, therefore allowing the appellate ruling against the bill to stand.
Our hope is for RBG to be replaced, then Roberts cannot stab us in the back.
Remember, if Roberts confirms RvW by shooting down this bill, then ALL the other abortion restrictions for all the other states are down the tubes. The court will not slice and dice this bill and say, well abortion is legal up til such and such week of pregnancy. The Alabama bill was written to be all or nothing, and if it gets to Roberts, we will get nothing. It will be back to 1973 all over again.
Roberts never misses an opportunity to say he hates 5-4 decisions and would rather go 5-4 or 6-3 to protect precedent. Just to protect his precious court. He will NEVER allow an overturn of precedent of this magnitude with a 5-4 decision. He only cares about his reputation.
The pure pleasure of watching McConnell allow the vote to replace Ginsburg during an election year. Would that outweigh Trump’s election issue of having that pick in jeopardy of a democrat president in 2021?
Ruth Ginsberg? Is she even still alive? From what I’ve read recently, she has not been to work for some time now.
RE: Whoever thinks precedent is sacrosanct has to factor out Dred Scott, yeah?
Yes, and the Jim Crow laws in 1896 as well.
Only a leftist progressive democrat hack would think its “fair” for a dead person to vote
You are right, that is / was the Joe Biden rule, BUT, BUT,BUT Linda Graham said he would not advance a SCOTUS appointment during a presidential year. Hate to say it, but I’m afraid there are a few / at least 4 Rinos in the Senate who would not allow a SCOTUS appointment go through next year. Regardless if the rule / tradition / precedent is only lame duck presidential election years. Hopefully what Linda has been through this past year with Kavanaugh and all that he will have a change of heart.
Extreme feminist live with a constant incongruity in their lives. They hate and envy men and everything male, while in the other hand wanting to be male and have all the ‘power and privilege’ that being male offers, such as sex without consequence. Feminist think having children is a curse and an obstacle to a happy fulfilling life and one men can choose to enjoy or not enjoy. The only way for women to have that same choice is if they can rid themselves of any unwanted child that might come along through imprudent sexual activities. They can never be men of they are always faced with the inconvenience of an unexpected child. Hence abortion as the sacrament of feminism and liberalism.
after RBG’s death but before her replacement takes the seat, can a lower court rule that her staff can prepare her ruling until the new Justice comes on board?
The question has already been asked and answered by the court. Its a resounding NO. If the justice is not alive on the day the vote is taken, they get no vote. It does not matter how they would have voted. It does not matter even if the decision is already written by the dead justice. They have to be there at the end to cast a vote or they get no vote.
I agree with your whole post 100%.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823."
"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.
It is worrisome to me how quickly people stopped discussing the suspicious circumstances of Antonin Scalia’s death.
Tin foil hats in place? The left killed him in anticipation of Harpy O’Smarmalot replacing him after her election. Then, with a solid leftwad majority on the court, they would gallop hell-for-leather for the seventh circle of Hell.
That is true, but in that situation, the empty SCOTUS seat would probably lead to more 5-3 decisions than 4-4 decisions. Not necessarily a bad thing.
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.