Posted on 04/22/2020 5:22:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
That would be nice, but this is a very isolated case. I wouldn't read too much into it.
[With three conservatives and three liberals signing on to the originalist ruling in Ramos, we see more evidence that the “living Constitution” school of thought has gone into decline.]
Agree, the liberal judges are voting “pro criminal rights “ and not as originalists.
I think the three were guided more by “who benefits?” than by any inclinations toward originalism. In this case, it was a member of a favored grievance group.
How is RBG doing now that the gyms are closed? Oh, that’s right, they have a private gym.
‘Starre decisis’ is a horrible excuse to continue bad decisions.
Glad to see Justice Thomas agreeing on this. He is right the most of any Justice.
Like granny backing up a long driveway, the Court tends to adopt new constitutional doctrines slowly and fitfully — but gets there eventually. So it is with Originalism, but how Originalist the Court will be will depend on the cases before it and who the justices are. So, as with much else, who gets elected matters.
True. In our age of Balkanized groups and races, convictions of monsters will be almost impossible. This decision will prove disastrous.
By this standard the Roger Stone retrial appeal with a very obviously biased juror should be a shoe in
I read another article yesterday that this ruling and the justices’ written theses just put a 16” artillery round through the principle of stare decesis, or established precedent. It leaves cases like Roe very much more exposed, and Gorsuch so far appears to be continuing the thinking of Scalia.
This is still an uphill battle. So the other three justices (Roberts included) went with the ball-less approach, and upheld an obviously flawed precedent that was decided by the same penumbra a-holes that gave us Roe-v-Wade. As ClearCase-guy, rmichaelj, and rightwingcrazy discussed in their posts, if Roe is revisited, the same ideological split will happen with the wimp-turncoat Roberts being the decider.
Or as Anthony Scalia put it “ Stare decisis is for suckers”
I agree that this decision is important, but the flip side to it is the threat of a single biased or corrupt juror. So the courts need to reconsider the eccentricities of jury performance and procedure, as well as remedies.
As things are now, after a trial if a juror makes an unconscionable statement about their prejudices or misbehavior of other jurors, it is very seldom enough to overturn a verdict.
Using a coin flip to determine a verdict is allowed, but consulting The Bible is not.
Ugly people are far more likely to be convicted than are attractive people.
Outrageous statements made by jurors to other jurors, for example: “I will never vote to convict a black man”, is not enough to prosecutors to seek a retrial.
The list goes on and on. A single screwball can ruin the whole system.
So does this overrule Oregon law too? LA’s is changed now by the Supreme court, is the only other state like LA now also required to allow unanimous juries?
Are you saying RBG is going to gyms at her age? Wow
What does the Oregon law say?
“Are you saying RBG is going to gyms at her age? Wow”
Yes, she has a private trainer and she does planks. Or that’s what the progressive media would have you believe.
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.