Plessy said that "separate but equal" was constitutional. We all know that it meant second-class citizenship for blacks. Previously, the Supreme Court had ruled that blacks couldn't even be citizens.
Roe v. Wade puts the preborn in a position where they cannot even aspire to second-class citizenship. It enshrines a practice aimed particularly at the same minorities harmed by Dred Scott and Plessy.
Needless to say, progressives find it inviolable. (Well, of course they do.) Feinstein's remarks tell us all we need to know about her and her party.
All the more reason we MUST get Gorsuch on the Court ASAP.
This is what they fear the most. Evil, evil people.
Did the SCOTUS consider Stare Decisis when taking the decision on same sex marriage? Did Feinstein care about Stare Decisis then??
Wait, I thought Feinstein said the Constitution’s a living document. If it is, then how can any decision be unchangeable?
Dred Scott is a super duper precedent.
It’s not just Super; it’s Super Duper [Not]!
While I agree that the Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong in principle, it was constitutionally technically correct imo, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit segregation.
In other words, the 13th Amendment, or another Reconstruction amendment, arguably should have had an express, anti-segregation clause imo.
Sadly, the fact that Reconstruction amendments didn't expressly prohibit segregation didn’t stop state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices from politically amending anti-segregation policy to the Constitution from the bench.
As a side note, are patriots aware of talk that the Civil War was arguably a symbolic contest of power between the federal government, represented by the Union States, versus the states, the states represented by the Confederate States, the 10th Amendment slowly politically fading from the Constitution after the Union States won the Civil War?
Corrections, insights welcome.
Charles Krauthammer says no filibuster for Gorsuch - “too stupid, even for Democrats”......
When did the court rule that blacks couldn’t be citizens?
The senile hag has abused her position for so long she actually believes the Constitution has a special section empowering her to define legal concepts and precedents on a whim.
Sorry you sad sack of ****, you lose.
Isn't it time for you to retire? Gracefully if possible, but kicking and screaming, if necessary...
Dred Scott was once settled law
Why wasn’t Lochner vs. NY an ironclad precedent? Because it stood in the way of Social(ist) Justice?
-—Roe v. Wade is a ‘super precedent’ that can’t be changed-—
Sorta like “only men can be senators”, eh Senator Crazy Dingbat?
Democrats hate it when rulings favoring their abuse of the defenseless are overturned, whether it’s Dred Scott, Plessy, or Roe.
Didn’t the democrats say the same about slavery
I don’t know...I bet if Goresuch got one of those decoder rings in a jar of Ovaltine he could defeat super precedent. Okay, that and a pair of xray glasses from the back of a comic book.
We’re governed by idiots.
Ordinary curiosity should propel us to explore exactly what it is in the "progressive" ideology that demands such an unbending position for the Democrat Party, and, therefore, for every Democrat politician who speaks for the Party.
The Party's "Forward" imagery, as well as its economic positions, which are more oriented to Socialism than to Capitalism and Freedom of Individual Enterprise may provide the clue one needs for examining the Party's hardline position on the Abortion and Contraception question, despite individuals whose religious affiliations would seem to lead individual Party members to a different conclusion.
On FR recently, there was a discussion of the "abortion" question, and the statement was made that "Friedman (Tom) was up in arms that the US would take away funding for abortion as a way for them to have population control. “What does this administration come up full scale against? A family planning technology being extended by the US government and climate change is a complete myth,” he chided.
"He argued that the increase in population coupled with the border wall would lead to a breakdown in the US/Mexico relationship when it came to national security. “Now how are the Mexicans gonna feel about keeping that going when we're building a high wall?"
Finally, right there in black and white, an admission that the bottom line on the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat Party's absolute and unyielding hard line, which they semantically describe by the misnomer of "women's issues" is, in fact, "population control"!!
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Slavery was super precedent for 90 years.
Women not voting was super precdent for 130 years.
Intellectual pinhead, Dianne is.
Like the Dred Scott decision. /s
Wasn’t traditional man-woman marriage ‘settled law’ ?