Posted on 06/26/2022 3:33:18 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
One day after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, which gave constitutional abortion rights to women for more than 50 years, a Texas senator is now going viral online for comparing it to another landmark ruling that was overruled related to racial segregation.
Sen. John Cornyn responded to a tweet by former president Barack Obama that denounced the Roe v. Wade decision. Cornyn's tweet said "Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education."
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
It’s always and ever simply a case of “It’s OK when we do it.”
The Court had a long run of liberals running it, and thus gained a reputation as the arbiter of everything, a sort of Super Legislature. This was all well and good, until decisions were handed down that they don’t agree with. Now it’s a Crisis. Overheard this week, uttered by the oh so tolerant “liberal” Democrats: “Pack the Court!” “Hang that Ni@@er!!” “Dissolve the Court!”. Last week, it was assassins.
It is a pathetic spectacle unlike anything ever seen. (Until the next thing, maybe this week, who really knows?)
“Politicizing the Court” = Anything Liberals Disagree With.
The Court was never envisioned as being a way to enact law, but Liberals used the judicial system to do an end run around issues that could not be accomplished legislatively.
Precedence or Stare Decisis is a sound legal doctrine, but it is not set in stone, nor should it be obviously. It is amusing that they somehow can find “fundamental constitutional rights” on issues never once mentioned in the Constitution, yet at the same time hold that there is no right to own a firearm, which is written in plain text. I mean, you don’t have to like it, but don’t lie about it.
Equally infuriating is this business of ignoring laws they don’t like, and refuse to enforce them. The Constitution is not a Smörgåsbord, you are not allowed to pick and choose.
No. Do Wickard v Filburn 1943. That’s the case where SCOTUS ruled that an Illinois farmer, growing wheat on his own land with no intent to sell it, impacts interstate commerce. With this ruling, Congress can justify poking the Federal regulatory nose everywhere it wants to stick it. Kill Wickard v Filburn behind the barn with an axe. Get the Federal government out of the business of the states.
Finally this Court is putting an end to that. Laws should be mostly left to the state, if not, then the Congress as long as it is within their jurisdiction.
The Congress should impeach the Supreme Court Justices if they get to carried away making laws.
-PJ
“Are we going to go all the way back to Marbury v Madison?”
Nope, but hopefully going back to undo all the damage caused by Democrats since Wilson. Can’t undo the amendments for income tax and popular election of senators, sadly. But the entire legal framework for the modern liberal regulatory state? HELLS YES.
Time for them to deem Social Security to be unconstitutional. Which it is.
Trees take in Co2 and convert it to oxygen.
When you cut them down or burn them, they release the Co2.
Now that SCOTUS returned abortion back to the states to decide, how much better would it be if the Senate were comprised of people who were aligned with the state legislatures instead of people who owe fealty to the party that funded their election?
-PJ
You all are missing Cornyn’s point. He is equating Roe v Wade to Plessy v Ferguson and equating Dobbs v Mississippi to Brown v Topeka. He’s making a good point about overturning bad decisions.
I see a copy of the tweet. He was responding to someone Obama said about the Court overturning a 50-year-old ruling.
It was a snide, sarcastic tweet of a sort that I see a dozen times a day. He was telling Obama to “do” it, meaning to make the same argument. He wasn’t talking to SCOUTS.
Elected Republicans should really keep quiet and not give the scaremongers more ammo.
How many judges have been impeached by congress over the years? Maybe count them on one hand? I came to the conclusion there ought to be at least a couple probably every year, or at least until they get their head out of their ass.
By the same token, Senators should never have been elected directly by the people. In the same way rogue judges should be routinely impeached, rogue senators should be recalled by state legislatures.
That, I think, was clearly the intent. The people should rule, they are our representatives. The problem now is all the structures are still in place, but they don’t seem to work right - all those electoral dials and switches and buttons, they aren’t connected to anything, they don’t work any longer, the controls have been hacked as it were.
He is the ultimate career politician. All he cares about is the good life in Washington. Not the only one by any means either.
“ His Tweet makes it sound like he wants to reverse those decisions”
Since Brown overturned Plessy the issue might be your comprehension level.
I’ve been using Plessy and the Dred Scott decision as examples of how huge cases were overturned and some people were outraged by a correct decision that overturned bad ones, just like Dobbs is correct in overturning Roe.
You sure he doesn't want to strike down Brown?
No matter what Cornyn nor Thomas may have said or written, nothing will happen until a state files a case or person files a case in their local courts.
I can't imagine that anybody would file a case challenging contraception or mixed-race marriage or same-sex marriage today. If they do, I can't imagine that case would survive all the way to the Supreme Court. It's only when that should happen that any of the fear that's being spread by the radicals would have any chance of happening.
There is so much out there to prevent these kinds of cases from making their way to SCOTUS in the first place.
-PJ
Ya think? Be really nice if we didn't give them ammunition for it.
I can't imagine that anybody would file a case challenging contraception or mixed-race marriage or same-sex marriage today.
Oh it wouldn't surprise me if someone did but I agree that the chances of such cases making it though the courts winding up in front of the Supreme Court are virtually nil. Oberfgell, on the other hand, or even Lawrence are quite another matter and I could easily see at least Obergfell on the docket within a year or two. Griswold may also wind up before the court if certain types of birth control are challenged.
On the one hand, Griswold was the case that coined the phrase "emanations from penumbras" when searching for a right to privacy. On the other hand, I do think there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution.
The is no right to "freedom of association" literally in the Constitution, but there is the right to peaceably assemble and worship.
There is no right to "freedom of travel" literally in the Constitution, but there is the Congressional power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads".
Association is inferred from assembly, and travel is inferred from post roads, ports, and commerce.
There is no "right to privacy", but there is the third amendment protection from the housing of soldiers, the fourth amendment protection to be secure in your papers and possessions, and the fifth amendment protection of self-incrimination. Keeping government agents out of your home, away from your papers, and denied the power to compel your confession are all examples of individual privacy rights.
Where, perhaps, Griswold went too far is in saying what you can do with your privacy is now publicly law. That, to me, is an oxymoron: it's either private or its public. If it's private, then nobody can say for sure what anyone is doing or not doing, and therefore cannot say whether it is legal or illegal, or Constitutional or unconstitutional. If it's public, then the privacy issue becomes moot, and cannot be used to define other implied rights.
Marriage is a public act, so claims of privacy around marriage is a non-starter for me. Use of contraceptives is a private act, but acquiring them is commerce. Other than people saying they object to paying for someone else's contraception, I don't see where privacy comes into it.
So, "going after" Griswold needs to be narrowed, in my opinion, to infer that the people have the right to be protected from an intrusive government, but the rest of it ends there.
What am I missing?
-PJ
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.