Posted on 05/19/2022 6:07:56 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Following the Supreme Court’s leak of a draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, many Court-watchers and pundits have pointed to same-sex marriage and access to contraceptives as rights now potentially at risk. And while in the long run the logic set forth in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could undermine those precedents, the Court may eviscerate other major areas of law far sooner—in fact, with cases on its docket this current term. Notably, the Court may soon declare the use of race in college admissions—affirmative action—illegal, and it may also massively constrain the power of the federal government to protect the environment.
The questions at hand in each case—Dobbs, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency—differ. But they all raise issues that have been the targets of conservative legal scholars for decades, and they will now be decided by a right-wing Court with seemingly little commitment to its own precedents......
The lower courts’ decisions and decades of precedent should lead the Supreme Court to side with Harvard in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, David Hinojosa, the director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told me. And despite the draft Dobbs opinion, he’s trying to have faith that the Court will rule in Harvard’s favor.
Perhaps with even less public awareness, the Court may also decimate the federal government’s power to make regulations that protect the environment. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which challenges the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, the Court could invoke what is known as the non-delegation doctrine—a theory that effectively says Congress cannot easily empower the executive branch to figure out the details of regulatory policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Obergefell needs to go right after Roe.
We must pray for t he strength and integrity of these jurists. They can begin to unravel the tyranny of the left.
Absolutely
Seriously, throwing “access to contraceptives” into this article is about as deceptive as anything can be. There is no case before the Supreme Court or any body of jurisprudence concerning the use or access to contraceptives, but the writer can claim that abortion is a form of contraceptive so he can add that into this screed.
Next action by the USSC? Perhaps we are counting on an abortion decision that may not be? Reference John Roberts and ObamaCare?
English Common Law = Judge made law. It’s a feature not a bug.
“Notably, the Court may soon declare the use of race in college admissions—affirmative action—illegal, and it may also massively constrain the power of the federal government to protect the environment.”
I would say that if a school is a private institution they can accept or deny anybody they want for any reason they want.
That said.. Even better, solution would be to bar ALL gov educational underwritten loans to any school that has discriminatory policies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut was a precedent for Roe etc.
quote “Notably, the Court may soon declare the use of race in college admissions—affirmative action—illegal, and it may also massively constrain the power of the federal government to protect the environment.”
MAN!! I HOPE SO!!!
honestly, I am not against contraception in the slightest. But there should be a federal law to make it legal, not a made up one by an activist court decades ago.
Weaken the Supreme Court and then move to put more justices in.
Why don’t we all wait until SCOTUS actually does something. The country is in a tizzy over a memo for something that might strike down a court decision and allow each state to set its own rules. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Didn’t Alito say: “The states and people should have a right to vote on it”
I’m ProLife.
And while I don’t want to seem like I’m making light of the topic, if reversing this decision means that liberals will move, en masse, out of RED States(Georgia being one of them), then by all means. Reverse the decisions and let them start packing.
affirmative action=racism
Oh my God! They may actually go by the actual written constitution!
Uh, the 13th and 19th amendments? 😂🙌
precedent doesn’t mean crap if it was WRONG and not constitutional. What if the court ruled slavery was ok...does that precedent make it right and bind all future courts from fixing the mistake?
same sex marriage; get gov completely out of the marriage business. No where does the gov need to know if you are married. Return marriage to it’s religious roots and be done with it.
Not sure why they’re so worried about the court stopping the EPA from controlling carbon emissions, since, if that happens, then Congress can simply give EPA the express authority to do just that (right now, the EPA justifies regulation by some vague language about ‘controlling pollution’ in their authorization).
Be fun to watch Congress deal with it, though!
It is not. “contra-” means against. “-ceptive” refers to conception. With abortion, conception has already occurred so it can’t be a contraceptive.
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.