Posted on 06/26/2022 3:33:18 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
His point was bad decisions have been previously overturned. Roe fits in with Plessy in that regard.
Cornyn is the new Romney
Dumbass gives them gun control and a few days later they destroy him for posting a baffling bit of nonsense. Good riddance.
Cornyn is definitely in the doghouse with his recent betrayal of his constituents with gun control, but he's not out of line with this. The comparison between Board of Education overturning Plessy appeared just a few years after the Roe decision, at least in the pro life movement.
He can be criticized for giving a meme to the left to dupe their low-information (and dare I say low-intelligence) voters, but he's solid on the substance. It's not a new comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
At the risk of being tedious, the left suddenly became fans of stare decisis (turning pretty much on a dime). The obvious retort was to point out that the left loved Board of Education, and had cheered when that opinion overturned decades of "separate but equal" doctrine that pretty much everyone agreed needed to be fixed. It was a chance to demand some measure of consistency from the left, which they hated at the time.
That's what Cornyn was referring to.
>Regardless, he should have kept his hands off the keyboard.
I think the problem is that the left is too stupid to understand what he’s saying.
Along the lines that Judge Thomas voiced regarding other past SCOTUS rulings based on imaginary 'substantive due process.' It is an offense to the law to have cases decided via made up reasoning. That doesn't necessarily imply Thomas thought the goals the bad rulings supported were bad.
It could be that valid law to support them existed, but lazy judges didn't think that far after hitting on the invalid reasoning. In which case the law would benefit from revisiting the cause and ruling with the same end result but valid reasoning. Less apt to corrupt future related cases. Or it could be that the underlying cause was constitutional, but the legislature wrote the laws poorly. So they deserved to be overridden on technicalities and rewritten to comport with the constitution. Or it could be that, although the cause being legislated was popular it just isn't allowed under the Constitution. In which case, if it is really popular enough, amend the Constitution. That that process requires substantial popularity, across most of the country, sustained over several years, to accomplish is a feature, not a bug, of the Constitution.
It is worth noting that it took 14 years from the ratification of the 18th, to repeal it and Federal prohibition with the 21st. Moreover, it, in present day context, is worth remembering that, in spite of the 21st being popularly remembered as ending prohibition nationwide, it did no such thing. It just repealed Federal usurpation of the issue and explicitly empowered the States to make their own laws. Exactly analogous to what Dodd did to Roe. And although both amendments were considered huge things in their time, both were legitimized by many more than 9 people. There are now a hodgepodge of different rules, regarding at least some alcoholic beverages, in different jurisdictions and they change over time with local sensibilities. Over time abortion law will do the same.
Why? He’s right. If you take Obama’s position that once a case is decided the Court can’t revisit it in the future, that means that Plessy should still stand. Cornyn is just daring him to say that no opinion that has stood for 50 years should be changed.
I heard that he did not plan to run for re election, not sure when his term is up.
This is not new for him. He has been on the wrong side many many times.
He does NOT Listen to constituents. Only when money talks.
Cornyn trying to be “relevant” after crapping his pants supporting the Gun Grabbers Red Flag Enablement laws
“As of now, twitter character limit is 280 characters”
The point he made was to call out Obama to denounce another righting of a constitutional wrong. He did so clumsily, but that is what he did.
Exactly
Cornyn tweets for show and votes for dough.
He’s telling Obama and his leftie friends that precedent gets overturned.
Then he names two times that overturning was good.
What isn’t clear here.
Among other things, timing.
I understood what Cornyn meant immediately. Don’t get the confusion.
What I’m surprised by is that after reading all the comments thus far, no one commented on the opening sentence which said that the court GAVE the constitutional right to women to have an abortion.
The court does not GIVE constitutional rights. It’s sole authority is to protect the GOD GIVEN rights the constitution recognizes as foundational to our republic.
Perhaps, but as US Senator he needs to express himself one he!! of a lot better.
I agree with everything you said.
He’s just making the point that court precedents have been overruled in the past, like Brown overruling Plessey... IOW precedents are not sacrosanct.
He could have said it a lot clearer.
I do my part. I cut down trees that exude CO2 all night long and reduce their input into the atmosphere. Then I repurpose the wood remaining into heat, which helps keep albedo effect/ thermal lag from coming the earth due to solar cycle 23 which is the coolest sunspot cycle since the 1980s. There. I am saving the planet one dastardly CO2 emitting tree at a time. Do I get any credit? Nope!
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.