Johnathan Chance, you missed one. Merged in yet another thread.
Johnathan Chance, you missed one. Merged in yet another thread.
If you believe that, then you must also believe that Citizens United and Heller – just to cite two famous examples that come to mind – were both unconscionable overreaches and just the kind of judicial activism you object to. You must surely believe that the kinds of justices that made up the majority in those rulings are anathema to the kind of even-handed and restrained role of the judiciary that you value.
Because Citizens United was intentionally broadened in scope when John Roberts arranged for it to be reargued in order to turn it from a narrow ruling on a specific event to broad social policy. And in ruling on Heller, Scalia, one of the Court’s great constitutional originalists, casually threw out the entire first part of the Second Amendment which he judged to be inconvenient and irrelevant decoration in order to focus on the part that he really liked. In effect, this notable “originalist” more or less rewrote it. I imagine you must be very concerned indeed about another justice in that same vein being appointed.
Shodan, unfortunately, the philosophy of strict constructionalism is, itself, contrary to the Constitution. It does exactly what the Ninth Amendment says shall not be done.
There can be disagreements on what is meant by and included in “text”, and what is meant by and included in “penumbrae and emanations”. If these things were super-obvious for anyone to discern, then we wouldn’t need a SCOTUS.
A bit longer than that, I figure. Hard to tell how fast a downturn can happen tho; I’ve never seen a deliberate one before.
I was going to make a bit of a joke about how we wouldn’t be so uncivilized as to use machetes, but this post seems a bit too dark for that. I can’t tell if it’s normal Doper hyperbole or if there really are people thinking we’re going to be full-on killing our neighbors by later this year (or anytime soon).
Seriously? A guy who wants to turn the court into a social media circus, and equates the committed loving relationship between two people of the same sex, to his love of Bacon? And openly mocks transgendered kids? This is who you consider to be likely to give thoroughly professional rulings??
WTF? Many of them weren’t judges at all, some had no legal experience, a couple had even been disbarred. I’ve seen them referred to as the least competent set of judges ever collected.
Consider the source.
I don’t know, let’s ask this guy in another thread about what would make posters considering joining a violent insurgency or rebellion:
I can’t help but thinking, if not for the electoral college we might be talking about putting an 8th liberal on the Court. (Admittedly, this presupposes an incumbent Gore wins re-election in 2004, and that his two terms don’t change the results of the next three elections.)
I don’t see that happening. This is America. We’ll use guns, not machetes.
Why not? We got the concentration camps. And authorities murder a certain segment of the population disproportionately, and a good number of people don’t care, cheer it on, or otherwise collaborate by shielding those in question from even discussion, much less consequences.
He might well share those opinions and values. In which case, it makes perfect sense.
“September” was hyperbole.
Of course, following the election year precedent established by Republicans in 2016, we won’t be seeing a vote on a nominee to replace Kennedy until the new Senate is sworn in in 2019, so there’s th-- I almost got it out without laughing!
Why exactly do you consider it “overreach” to insist on making sure that constitutional protections apply to everybody?
On the Second Amendment, I assume from your post that you are one of those who somehow manage to consider the right to bear arms to be a collective right. It isn’t, as even a cursory examination of the law would show you.
Here’s something I haven’t seen mentioned yet:
Will the threat of the possibility of overturning some of the more liberal decisions of the court prompt states into rushing to get laws passed, or measures put on the November ballot, to legalize them within their states? Remember, New York allowed abortions before Roe, and same sex marriages before Obergefell. There was no need for most states to have their own laws because the Supreme Court mandated them - but that may not be the case any more, in which case, the states need to have their versions of the corresponding laws in place if a reversing decision comes down.
Meanwhile, the cries of “What happened to, ‘Let’s have an election first before voting on a new justice’, Republicans?” have already started. Trump is leading the calls of making absolutely sure a new Justice is approved before November.
Don’t forget: Breyer’s 80th birthday is in August.
Not remotely correct. The prefatory clause announces a purpose; the operative clause effectuates that purpose. Nothing was thrown out.
It’s judicial activism because it unnecessarily broadened the scope of the case to a hugely impactful ruling, and one that hugely biased an already very biased political playing field by granting almost unlimited power to Big Money to dominate public opinion, with no significant means to counterbalance it. The claim of free speech protections is a pretext. A billionaire has the same free speech rights as I do, yes, but not the same right to exploit his vastly greater power to dominate public opinion and install politicians of his choice.
How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
In order to make the “individual right” interpretation, Scalia had to ignore the “militia” preamble as irrelevant. This flies in the face of early drafts, the interpretations of constitutional scholars, and what is known of the framers’ intent and the nature of the times. As was stated in the amicus curiae submitted to the court at the time by 15 eminent scholars of American history,
… the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.
This is getting off topic, but my point was that both those decisions appear to be cheered on by conservatives more on the basis of the end justifying the means than on the basis of judicial restraint and sound constitutional principles. And I suspect there’s now going to be a lot more of that.
And the actual purpose was duly ignored.