Skip to comments.Sotomayor’s “Settled Law” Snag
Posted on 07/14/2009 7:57:36 PM PDT by Publius772000
In calling Roe v. Wade settled law, Sotomayor affirmed a womans right to choose based on the Supreme Courts decision. Here are a few other Supreme Court decisions that, in the past, could have equally been called settled law:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Against the backdrop of growing tension between sections of the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of a slave who, having lived with his master in a free state for a period of time, wished to be considered a free man. The Supreme Court heard the case and ruled against the enslaved Scott. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that Scott had no case because of his race.
[Negroes] were not intended to be included, under the word citizens in the Constitution, Taney wrote, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.
For a time, this was settled law.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) In another civil rights case, Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, was arrested for violating Louisianas Separate Car Act. Plessy had purchased a train ticket and sat in a car designated whites-only. He was promptly arrested and placed on trial for violating the states mandate. Lower courts found in favor of the state, and Louisianas high court confirmed their decisions, so the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the majority decision, which ruled against Plessy, the Court established that racial equality did not necessitate racial integration. In the Courts opinion, according to Justice Henry Billings Brown, the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit the government from making racial distinctions.
[continued on original article]
(Excerpt) Read more at theconstitutionalalamo.com ...
Settled law? How come Lawrence vs. Texas overturned Bowers vs. Hardwick?
Email Lindsey Graham and Jeff Sessions . . . www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.html
Tell ‘em about this.
It’s sure gettin’ tough to seat a puppet dumbass on the Supreme Court with the Internet letting average people provide powerful, crushing, and damning arguments.
thank you for this posting. i was listening to the “settled law” crap today and wondering why none of the pubbies mentioned these “settled” issues.
Very welcome :) I was a little perplexed, myself, that “settled law” would even be brought up by an activist judge.
Yes, the Internet does make it a bit tougher to get away with stupidity and “misspeaking,” but it hasn’t really stopped Congress from enslaving our kids yet, so we still have work to do. Or at least we need to keep fighting until Obama decrees the Internet to be subversive and shuts it down to all but party loyalists.
If only Grahamnesty would use such information... although he has been trying to act tough from time to time in these hearings, apparently trying to score some points with conservatives.