Severally, but not together, and that sovereignty is limited. But point taken!
Uh-huh. When the courts make a decision you don’t like, you complain about “courts making new law”. When they make one you like, you’re all “hey, the law is whatever the courts say it is”.
Wrong. In Dobbs, the Court returned the decision to the People. The States, through the People’s elected representatives, can make the decision on their own. That’s the exact opposite of the Judiciary making laws.
This is a Supreme Court that doesn’t have a lot of respect for precedents, even its own. Maybe it’s time for them to discard Marbury, yes?
(Well, maybe not D_Anconia.)
No, I am 100% behind Roe, why did you think I was being sarcastic?
Sorry, it was late and I misread-I somehow thought you were saying the decision about Roe was wonderful. Brainfart, my apologies!
@D_Anconia , of course we can all make our own decisions about what the law says. The system couldn’t possibly function otherwise.
Suppose that, tomorrow, there were a public school soccer coach who started kneeling and praying on midfield after every game, and invited students to join him, and had cameras filming it. Is that an establishment clause violation? Under your argument, the only possible answer is “We don’t know”, because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that case. You can argue “Well, here’s a very similar Supreme Court case that they have ruled on”, and say that the ruling would be the same… but then, we can also point to very similar Supreme Court cases where the ruling was different. We have to be able to each be our own judges, to be able to decide anything, without having to run to daddy every single time to ask for the rule.
Incidentally, this is also why stare decisis is so important: In order for the system to work, we have to be able to expect that the courts will be consistent. If you can’t count on the result of the prayer-in-classroom case applying to the prayer-on-football-field case, then you also can’t count on the result of the prayer-on-football-field case applying to the prayer-on-soccer-field case. Because maybe by the time that soccer coach’s case reaches the Supreme Court, we’ve had a couple of the current members replaced by judges who actually respect the Constitution, and it’ll be overturned again.
One of the biggest features of Trump was that he played the role of an iconoclast, tearing down institutions and norms that didn’t serve his narcissistic aims.
And the SC is now following in his footsteps.
Here’s something I posted during his administration:
Politically, Trump is the textbook definition of an iconoclast – a person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions. But I think it was Megyn Kelly who said, “some of those things probably needed to be broken, but some of those things are very precious to us.” Trump is the ultimate blunt instrument. He’s a grenade tossed into a crowded market. A relatively small handful of you turned him loose on the rest of us and on the world. It’s difficult to imagine how, if, when, and at what cost his damage might be undone.
The chaos that Trump wrought is nearly incalculable, but the Supreme Court has different places where their grenades hit – maybe more hostile and malevolent to the fabric of our society.
It’s pretty unbelievable to think of the incremental harm that this SC could do if they truly decide that it would be a charming little thought experiment to ‘review’ (ie, wield its enormous power and outsized ideological influence) many of the foundational cases on which our society is currently constituted [NPI].
Except if the People of a State are trying to put any restrictions on gun ownership, right? Then it’s the Court’s duty to take that decision away from the People. Infringing First Amendment rights by coercive prayer in public schools is fine, infringing Second Amendment rights by implementing gun control is a no-no. 
The conservative approach to jurisprudence seems to be solidifying into “whatever conservatives want is how the law should be interpreted, consistency be damned”.
It was the school district that infringed on First Amendment rights.
Entangling government with religion is not a First Amendment right. The school district didn’t infringe on the coach’s right to engage in Christian prayer during games.
What they forbade him to do was to use his government-enabled position, as an authority figure in a public school, to pressure students to engage in Christian prayer during games.
Did you read the decision itself?
The District violated Mr. Kennedy’s Free Speech and Free Exercise rights. They ruled that there was NO violation of the Establishment Clause. And as the Court explained, those clauses are all part of the First Amendment, and Establishment doesn’t take priority over Exercise and/or Speech.
Yes, we all know what the Court’s conservative majority ruled in this case. What we’re discussing in this particular segment of this thread is whether the majority’s ruling is coherent, consistent and logically justifiable. As Chronos explained in post #167, if there isn’t a coherent, consistent and logically justifiable interpretation of the law in court decisions on existing cases, then we will be left knowing jack-shit about how to handle subsequent situations that turn into future cases.
You can’t resolve that issue by just continuing to circularly insist that “the Court’s decision was correct because that’s the way the Court ruled”.
stare decisis is important for reliance reasons, as you and others have said. However, it’s not carved on stone tablets. Otherwise, we still have bad things like “separate but equal”, et. al.
No, but it’s also not just written on sand. There are valid reasons to be concerned about the Court’s flip-flop in Kennedy v. Bremerton, as the ACLU has explained:
Plessy codified reducing the Constitutional rights of a segment of society. In overturning Plessy, Brown gave more rights, under the Constitution, to that segment of society.
Dobbs is regressive in terms of liberty. IMHO, it’s really yet another example where the ‘limited government,’ ‘individual liberty,’ putative ‘Freedom Caucus’ Conservative has to continually hold their nose and remind themselves of all the votes they got in their deal with the devil – aligning themselves with the Evangelical movement.
Old School Conservatives should be ideologically opposed to nearly every position held by the Evangelicals.
And. Yet …
And just like in Weimar Germany, where conservatives made a deal with the devil, they lost control of the movement to the radical fascists that they thought they were just using.
And Kennedy violated the students and spectators Free Exercise rights. But you obviously don’t care about them.
And any coaches or other staff.
But the only people whose rights are being violated are non-christian, so that’s just fine.
Or also those Christians, who take seriously Jesus’ commandment to pray privately:
Participating in prayer by social compulsion doesn’t match up with what The Big Guy said.