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

To: at bay

It was an example of the law profession’s views trumping the views of large swaths of the country. In that example, it was probably for the best, but you can hardly call it democratic.

I’m just arguing that that’s what the Court always does; imposes preferred, standardized values on the country. And right now, the values the Supreme Court are standardizing are those on sex and morality, including homosexuality.


16 posted on 12/06/2010 10:12:47 AM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: ivyleaguebrat

Still a chance that Roe v Wade gets overturned. I don’t know why the legal thrust has never focused on the fraud involved in the original case—that there was no gang rape as the appelant Roe claimed.

Right now it would probably be Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts to overturn. Kagan, Soto, Breyer and Ginsburg naysayers, and, Kennedy gets to decide the fate of millions of unborn children.

Yes, I agree, the court has overstepped it’s boundaries for far too long.

I like what the Michigan State Supreme Court did in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan State v Sitz, allowing roadblocks to investigate a crime for which there was no probable cause to suspect those stopped.

They said “Fine, you can’t find the protection in the US Constitution, we find it in ours and to hell with your decision.” I suspect more state supreme courts could do this in various cases if they had the cajones.


18 posted on 12/07/2010 5:47:34 PM PST by at bay (My father was born with 28 ounces of flesh in 1924 then went on to become Mr. (Glenn) Holland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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