Tick, tick, tick, tick....
Here is an observation from the New York SUN as to how the liberals see the decision:
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/panic-over-the-supreme-court/90683/
“The Right-Wing Supreme Court Is coming for Roe v. Wade,” is the headline on Splinter.com. The Liberals are “warning us” that Roe is in “mortal danger,” booms the Washington Post. The New York Times is rushing out an op-ed piece by a law professor. “The Supreme court made clear on Monday that Roe v. Wade may soon no longer be the law of the land,” it begins.
There you have it. Liberals see much of the radical and anti-democratic social structure they forced on the country through the Court’s blatant overreach threatened. This fear is compounded by the fact that the Left knows that Trump is likely to have the opportunity to make two and perhaps three more appointments to the Supreme Court before he leaves office (that is, if he wins a second term ).
Court made law is always subject to change. Theoretically courts aren’t supposed to make law, so reversing such decisions is more in line with the court’s duties.
Tick, tick, tick, tick....
That’s not quite accurate. They worship stare decisis (as what alternative do they have?) for liberal decisions. Many of those decisions overturned conservative or Constitutional precedent but that’s fine. Only lib precedents have to be inviolable in perpetuity.
After RBG’s death but before her replacement takes the seat, can a lower court rule that her staff can prepare her ruling until the new Justice comes on board?
It would seemingly be the only really fair course of action
This is true but the opposite corollary is that what separates so-called conservative Republican politicians from normal people is their endless capacity for weakness.
I suppose the 4 “ dissenters” think that Dred Scott should have been final
After all it was a 7-2 decision
Now the California Franchise Tax Board can legally commit Fraud, Extortion and Racketeering in other States with full immunity. What they did to this guy way back when should have Landed them in a Nevada State Prison. Thats why he initially won $300 Million in his Lawsuit.
I fail to see why Immunity should be granted in blatant criminal acts just because it was done by Government Agents.
My Lord...
Clarence Thomas is the best SCJ on the Court.
Alabama abortion law. Wrong bill at wrong time.
1) Roberts is NOT going to go down as the CJ who allowed “HIS” court to overturn RvW.
2) Incrementalism is how the liberals do it. Challenge anti-sodomy laws, then civil unions, then full blown gay marriage in state after state, sue, sue, sue.
3) Limit abortion to 24 weeks, then 22, then 20, the courts will find it harder and harder to allow abortion as the lawsuits keep shrinking the time in which an abortion can be had.
4) We know exceptions for rape and incest are huge loopholes, but they still force the courts to accept some restriction, its the nose under the tent.
Roberts will find a way to shoot this down. RBG existence has nothing to do with this. If this comes before the court and she is gone, Roberts will definitely rule against it making it a 4-4 vote, therefore allowing the appellate ruling against the bill to stand.
Our hope is for RBG to be replaced, then Roberts cannot stab us in the back.
Remember, if Roberts confirms RvW by shooting down this bill, then ALL the other abortion restrictions for all the other states are down the tubes. The court will not slice and dice this bill and say, well abortion is legal up til such and such week of pregnancy. The Alabama bill was written to be all or nothing, and if it gets to Roberts, we will get nothing. It will be back to 1973 all over again.
Roberts never misses an opportunity to say he hates 5-4 decisions and would rather go 5-4 or 6-3 to protect precedent. Just to protect his precious court. He will NEVER allow an overturn of precedent of this magnitude with a 5-4 decision. He only cares about his reputation.
Ruth Ginsberg? Is she even still alive? From what I’ve read recently, she has not been to work for some time now.
It is worrisome to me how quickly people stopped discussing the suspicious circumstances of Antonin Scalia’s death.
Tin foil hats in place? The left killed him in anticipation of Harpy O’Smarmalot replacing him after her election. Then, with a solid leftwad majority on the court, they would gallop hell-for-leather for the seventh circle of Hell.
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.