Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court immunity decision again spurs talk of adding justices, term limits
ABC News Local ^ | July 2, 2024 | By Sarah Schulte

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: addingjustices; immunity; prezimmunity; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer

Why do they care what the SC says when they just ignore their decisions unless it helps them destroy America.


21 posted on 07/03/2024 5:55:48 AM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“”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.


22 posted on 07/03/2024 5:56:11 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


23 posted on 07/03/2024 5:56:39 AM PDT by MortMan (Charter member of AAAAA - American Association Against Alliteration Abuse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

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.


24 posted on 07/03/2024 5:58:26 AM PDT by phil00071
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
Oh, yes. To help the puffed-up liberal understand why the decision was made, we should bring up Obama's droning of American citizens without any pretense of due process, and the absolute necessity of prosecuting him for those actions.

After all, no man is above the law!

25 posted on 07/03/2024 5:59:31 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: phil00071

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.


26 posted on 07/03/2024 6:01:38 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Gender dysphoria is now a federally protected mental illness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


27 posted on 07/03/2024 6:02:01 AM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
LaCroix holds a Ph.D. in history, but only a first law degree which did not require that she write, nor defend, a dissertation.
Alison L. LaCroix
She should be teaching history classes, not constitutional law.
28 posted on 07/03/2024 6:02:19 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
She apparently believes Dredd Scott should still be the law of the land.

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.

29 posted on 07/03/2024 6:02:54 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


30 posted on 07/03/2024 6:03:06 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Never Trust A Man Whose Uncle Was Eaten By Cannibals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN

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!


31 posted on 07/03/2024 6:03:55 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Only the ignorant and the lying liberal democrat politicians are “questioning the state of the nation’s highest court”...


32 posted on 07/03/2024 6:04:16 AM PDT by CardeadInKy ("The problem with Liberalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Marg Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


33 posted on 07/03/2024 6:10:07 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Democrats' version of MAGA: Making America the Gulag Archipelago. Now with "Formal Deprogramming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
The Supreme Court doesn’t insert itself into anything. Cases are BROUGHT to the Supreme Court.

And this round was initiated by dems ! FAFO

34 posted on 07/03/2024 6:18:59 AM PDT by chiller (Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'll go ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Brandonmark
Monday's decision allowing presidents to operate above the law
What a bunch of excrement!

/\

yup the rotting corpse of academia passed with the sphincter of urinalism can produce nothing other than flatulence and feces

imho

35 posted on 07/03/2024 6:20:34 AM PDT by cuz1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Classic over-educated white liberal woman. The bane of Western civilization.


36 posted on 07/03/2024 6:21:19 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glennaro

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


37 posted on 07/03/2024 6:23:30 AM PDT by chiller (Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'll go ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The Democrats want to amend the Constitution - just not Constitutionally . . .


38 posted on 07/03/2024 6:26:10 AM PDT by MCSETots ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MCSETots

This leftist nitwit needs to read the Constitution and other founding documents. That is “IF” she can read.


39 posted on 07/03/2024 6:34:03 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Congress, lead by example and vote to term limit yourselves, then we’ll talk.


40 posted on 07/03/2024 6:34:52 AM PDT by PTBAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson