A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of: Liberals are freaking out

American Thinker ^ | 05/16/2019 | Peter Skurkiss

[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.

[FreeReign]

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.

Liberals think that conservatives want to "conserve" unconstitutional decisions and that we believe in stare decisis?

Nevermind that a conservative (speaking for myself) really wants to "conserve" the original intent of the Constitution.

[RipSawyer]

I have long believed that words have real meanings that do not change with use. The way some people seem to look at things is that if the word “cool” appeared in the constitution it would no longer mean a relatively low temperature but would, in current understanding, mean something trendy and desirable and therefore the meaning of the law would change accordingly. Maybe I’m just a grumpy old man and I’m not “cool”.

[Stravinsky]

You are absolutely correct.

Roberts is the type of justice who would join the liberals to preserve Roe if it came down to a 5-4 decision, but would probably be the 6th vote to overturn Roe if a female conservative replaced Ginsburg just so he could make sure the opinion was assigned to that woman because a female being the author would provide “his” court some cover from criticism. IOW, he doesn’t give a darn about the legal principles involved.

[Chode]

[Bullish]

He's giving the left the nightmares they deserve. We should all work hard to give Trump re-election, the house and a filibuster proof Senate.

We can do it!