Okay, there are nine justices who are, on the average, idiotic theocrats.
I disagree with all religious nutjobs. Some happen to be Supreme Court justices. Nothing irrational about that.
It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with their religion. What I have a problem with are religious nutjobs who think they can tell me I have to follow their religious beliefs.
Good thing the SCOTUS hasn’t done that, then.
Yes, they have. The idea that a fetus is a living human being is a religious belief.
The problem is, if the constitution is up for grabs when the country is as divided as it is now, it’s a recipe for civil war. The last time the USA had such a divide, it was only settled by one side out-killing the other and then telling the losers “tough shit”.
That wasn’t the ruling. They said abortion regulations were up to the People via the democratic process. As it should be.
Is Thomas really just in hate with liberal progressive values, and willing to back any rationale to strike them down? Or is it that as a jurist he truly believes that substantive due process as a doctrine is logically flawed, and would be okay with the cited decisions being restored under sounder constitutional foundations?
It seems to me that a lot of the criticism leveled against the current court is basically that if the court is okay with the results of its decisions, it must mean that the court is ideologically in favor of those results- outcome-based jurisdiction. And that any claims to being neutral are self-serving lies. Whereas some schools of jurisprudence maintain that decisions should be results-blind, and that any other interpretation would be the logical fallacy of Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia
The case of the praying coach on the football field goes in that direction.
He’s construing the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Didn’t someone once say somewhere that that shall not be done?
The problem of course is that if a right isn’t enumerated, how do you claim that a law is violating it? Much as it pains the would-be libertarian in me, I think that the ninth and tenth amendments only make logical sense as counters to Federal overreach, back when that was the primary purpose of the Bill Of Rights. And in this case the Federal government is letting go of a claimed authority, not asserting one.
Not really. The ruling again was in line with the actual Constitution:
“Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance
from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression>”
It’s not some kind of religious wackiness, it’s what the Constitution says.
Nonsense. They’re conservatives. Conservatives don’t believe in the democratic process. Conservatives believe they should be running the country and everyone else should do what they’re told.
The majority of the people wanted the Roe decision to stand. This was another example of conservatives ignoring what the democratic process said and rigging the system to get what they wanted.
I believe the dispute is over just how personal and individual an observance it really is when conducted by a school official with students in attendance.
The conservative majority on the Court took a right away from people and gave it back to the government to regulate. This was a huge defeat for libertarianism.
The Supreme Court doesn’t rule based on what the majority wants. That’s rather the point of that branch of government.
You’re the one who claimed this ruling was about democracy.
When it was a personal religious observance, it wasn’t a problem. The problem started when the coach, as an agent of the government, started establishing religion.
Insofar as the People get to decide, not judges, yes.
Back to the state governments. Nonetheless it was a reduction in Federal power, which was the technical point I was making vis a vis the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Without a doubt.