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.
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.
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?
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!
Let’s face it...the Feds have been usurping the power of the States for years...under the guise of...”If you want money...Obey”.
“… Court-watchers and pundits have pointed to same-sex marriage…
…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.”
So much panic! I’m not seeing a problem here.
My understanding of the Constitution, undoubtedly flawed as hell, says FedGov has ONLY those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and no others. (Ninth and Tenth Amendments being real and applicable.)
Therefore, the Supremes could spend the next ten years throwing out federal law after federal law, nonstop and uninterrupted. Where the HELL does FedGov get the power to outlaw 100-watt lightbulbs, require ethanol or 10,000 other intrusions into our lives.
In fairness, however, I think a new Amendment would be needed to keep Social Security in place. Otherwise, start slashing!
They need to right many of the ludicrous 60s decisions by the activist court...
Like Religion in the public square and schools.
The interpretation that No State Sponsored religion equates to no religion of any sort allowed in public is fundamentally incorrect.
Zen Master told me last year that Roe, Guns, Affirmative Action would be settled in our favor . . . in that order.
THE CONSTITUTION, NOT the Court, is the Supreme Law of the Land (U.S. Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2).
Constitutionally, the Court does NOT have exclusive right to interpret, apply the Constitution. The Constitution gives no such power to the Court. If the feds including the courts, violate the Constitution, the remedy must come from elsewhere.
Who then? Other branches of the federal government. The States. After all, the Constitution created the very limited federal government to protect the people’s God-given freedoms and liberties from government coercion.
The remedy begins with reading and applying the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. Plain language should be taken a such again with the understanding that the intent of the Constitution was a LIMITED government that would protect America mainly from outside invasion. (The states are constitutionally local governance to deal with law and order within our country.)
If there is ambiguity, again, you go to the original understanding of the language, the agreement with the foundation of the Constitution which is the Declaration of Independence as persuasive authority for intent, as well as the intent of the 13 ratifying states who wanted the protection but also no infractions on their freedom and sovereignty.
The Constitution MANDATES that all federal law or Court decisions be “in Pursuance” of the Constitution (Id.) but does not identify who may correct such infractions especially if such infraction come from flawed, unconstitutional Court decisions.
Thus, the Constitution does not not prohibit any recognizable entity - states, other branches of the feds - from nullifying an unconstitutional federal law or Court decision after publishing a reasonable, Constitutional-based challenge. The main reason the states have not done so is because the state politicians are afraid of losing their unconstitutional federal funding.
A big key is the people of the states voting in the right people to take charge of the states so the states become financially INDEPENDENT of the feds as they once were.