How much respect do you think the liberal justices have for the Heller precedent?
Well, the assumption there is that they are a bunch of political hacks, is it not? Even political hacks would not want to commit political suicide. Which would happen if they overturned Brown. If you think otherwise, I’m sorry, you’re delusional. The average Republican does not want that. That’s absurd.
I don’t know. What do you think, and why?
Do you really believe that the 5 who voted together in Nevada don’t have respect for stare decisis? Can you recite what the standard is for overturning past precedent? These conclusions seem pretty hyperbolic to me. I’ll grant that Thomas has never been a fan of stare decisis, but overturning one previous holding in no way indicates a lack of respect for or a chucking of stare decisis. Overturning past precedent is not frequent, but it has happened regularly in the history of the court.
You don’t seem to understand that nothing is political suicide to a body that has lifetime appointments. They are effectively untouchable.
It’s been my observation that average Republicans may not actively want extreme things. But as soon a Republican politician presents them with an extreme choice that benefits them, they cheerfully vote “yes” and move on with their lives.
As you likely know this is based on a large volume of legal opinion that won’t fit here. Summarized, the bar is when doing so would cause the ruling to violate the constitution, or when there are extraordinary circumstances. I don’t see anything in the majority opinion explaining that they saw constitutional issues at stake, or that they believed extraordinary circumstances justified the overturn.
It’s hyperbolic in that legal principles are not simply “chucked”, but rather eroded by being casually ignored. Thomas stated in effect “we think the earlier ruling was in error, so we’re not bound by it”. The majority went with it. This will be their precedent when conservatives go for bigger game like Roe v. Wade and I don’t think it’s an accident.
I don’t think that captures the actual calculus. This is a decent article on the precedent about precedent aspect:
There’s a lot more than, we think that was wrong so nyah nyah. The opinion did explain the basis for overruling Hall:
Anyways, I think a Ginsburg vacancy would energize voters and increase overall turnout.
They listed 4 factors for their decision. It seems like their first 2 rationales don’t really speak to the first 2 factors. The third factor might weakly be true and they didn’t address the 4th factor at all.
So their overall reasoning seems very dodgy and not meeting the bar of extraordinary circumstances. I am not a judge so my legal doesn’t matter much. However, I think this indisputably tips the scale toward, not away, from more aggressive challenges to stare decisis.
Agreed on that, but I think it would selectively energize Trump-weary Republicans who would otherwise stay home.
This. A Supreme Court vacancy is one of the few - perhaps only - things that gets Never-Trump conservatives to temporarily support Trump.
LOL, right.
Agreed. As Mr. Dooley said, “the Supreme Court follows the election returns”. And if they don’t? If they are really so stubborn and ideological as to ignore that? Let them overturn *Brown *and Roe. I would dance a happy dance, because that would serve up a massive blue wave on a silver platter.
Is it really worth the trade-off?
Simply reversing Roe v Wade might not necessarily serve up a blue wave. If Red states were to have more reasonable anti-abortionlaws except rape, incest, or potential danger to the mother’s health, I doubt it would change that much. But the extremes to which conservatives have gone the last several weeks ought to be a red flag, not only for women but to anyone who doesn’t want to live in a Taliban-style state.
Unfortunately, though, I don’t think most people are paying attention. People write it off as hyperbole or news that doesn’t really apply to them. That’s one reason why I believe we’re ripe for an authoritarian takeover. It’s not Trump that worries me; it’s the millions of people who every day, every year have said that they’re okay with authoritarianism, or that they don’t care enough to stop it.
not all of the never Trump people are going to back his Supreme court picks. That’s not to say they want a liberal on the court but they may not favor his picks.
Sure. It’s not like overturning those decisions would instantly put us back in the status we had in 1950 or 1970, as the case may be. Nothing would change in most states, and TBH in the states where it would change, maybe decent people need a wakeup call that those places are hellholes they should move out of.
In a very shocking move, McConnell says that he will fill a SC vacancy in the 2020 election year.
I cannot believe this would happen!!
Shocker.
What a surprise. The hypocritical little dick acts like a hypocritical little dick. When the great American experiment in democracy dies, McConnell’s fingerprints will be on the knife.
How typically Republican: He doesn’t actually believe the things he claimed to believe.
To say that Republicans have no shame is an understatement.
McConnell, he’s so fucking smug and I can’t stand him. The laughing crowd is no better.