Posted on 07/03/2024 5:38:00 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
CHICAGO (WLS) -- Blockbuster Supreme Court decisions, like overturning Roe v. Wade, and Monday's ruling on presidential immunity, have some questioning the state of the nation's highest court.
Recent action by the justices is setting off new conversations about Supreme Court reform.
"I think one of the things we see in the Trump vs. U.S. is that the court is really inserting themselves into the midst of this highly politicized issue," said Alison LaCroix, a University of Chicago law professor.
Monday's decision allowing presidents to operate above the law left many constitutional law experts scratching their heads.
"I don't remember a decision that frightened me more than this one, or a decision that I thought was as wrong-headed as this one. Our entire country was built on the premise that we wanted to avoid tyranny," said Martin Redish, a Northwestern School of Law professor.
"It's more of these cases, where they say, 'we know what the founders thought, so we can overturn the law as it's been,'" LaCroix said.
LaCroix is a constitutional law expert and a historian. She said the current high court is not interpreting history correctly.
LaCroix said while Supreme Courts have always been political, the current block of conservative justices are changing the meaning of the law based on their own version of history.
"They're very willing to overturn precedent and to just say, 'this principle in law, stare decisis, it stands decided.' They basically say, 'we're not bound by that. And we don't even have a preference for not overturning the law,'" LaCroix said.
LaCroix said SCOTUS' recent rulings have reignited legal conversations about Supreme Court reforms, such as adding more justices or term limits for the lifetime appointees.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc7chicago.com ...
Why do they care what the SC says when they just ignore their decisions unless it helps them destroy America.
“”I think one of the things we see in the Trump vs. U.S. is that the court is really inserting themselves into the midst of this highly politicized issue,” said Alison LaCroix”
The Supreme Court doesn’t insert itself into anything. Cases are BROUGHT to the Supreme Court.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted Roe v Wade was a terrible ruling, even though she supported the end result.
Ms. LaCroix is an historian ignorant of history. “Stare decisis” was meant to prevent endlessly litigating the same point of law, not to be a wall against correcting prior effor in its interpretation. She apparently believes Dredd Scott should still be the law of the land.
If we lose the Supreme Court, our republic is over. If the Democrats win the White House in November, they may have the opportunity to replace two of the conservative judges in the next few years, flipping the court to 5-4 liberal.
After all, no man is above the law!
Yep. You always know how a liberal will decide. Heck, RBG wasn’t even awake for many of the arguments brought before the court because she had made up her mind well before the case was heard. So much for being an unbiased jurist.
Correct me if I’m wrong-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)
This is a good thing.
It puts the onus on the courts and doesn’t allow every federal agency to act independently, deciding on their own what is constitutional or not.
This is a small step in the right direction, away from the technocracy which we have created: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/technocracy.asp
The idea that a federal agency writes regulations that impact the people and strip from them rights, and then on its own decides if these regulations are in sync with the Constitution is frankly, nuts.
That’s why we have a judiciary! https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure “Federal courts hear cases involving the constitutionality of a law, cases involving the laws and treaties of the U.S. ambassadors and public ministers, disputes between two or more states, admiralty law, also known as maritime law, and bankruptcy cases.”
What we had was the courts abdicating their responsibility, deferring back to some federal agency where you might have a conflict of interest.
Yep. And when one of their slaves on the liberal plantation tries to escape, they try to bring him back alive or dead. Fugitive slave laws, you know.
Let’s assume that the Rats somehow succeed in creating 10 new seats and nominates and confirms 10 new “justices”. IIRC the judges already on the court can vote to refuse to seat any of the nominees. That would be fun.
the left INVENTED gerrymandering and used it for DECADES to hold control of the house!!!
It’s only bad NOW, that Republicans started to do it!
Only the ignorant and the lying liberal democrat politicians are “questioning the state of the nation’s highest court”...
My secret hope: the left passes expansion of the Supreme Court just in time for newly reinaugurated President Trump to appoint six new, young ultra-MAGA justices.
And this round was initiated by dems ! FAFO
/\
yup the rotting corpse of academia passed with the sphincter of urinalism can produce nothing other than flatulence and feces
imho
Classic over-educated white liberal woman. The bane of Western civilization.
Extremely popular FDR tried it and got his ass handed to him because it was so unpopular.
I don’t recall, but 60 % majorities are likely needed to add justices... and states.
Keep dreaming
The Democrats want to amend the Constitution - just not Constitutionally . . .
This leftist nitwit needs to read the Constitution and other founding documents. That is “IF” she can read.
Congress, lead by example and vote to term limit yourselves, then we’ll talk.
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.