Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court’s conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask ‘which cases...
WaPo via MSN ^ | 13 May 2019 | Robert Barnes

Posted on 05/14/2019 1:52:55 AM PDT by blueplum

Full Title: Supreme Court’s conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next’

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned a 41-year-old precedent Monday, prompting a pointed warning from liberal justices about “which cases the court will overrule next.”

The issue in Monday’s 5 to 4 ruling was one of limited impact: whether states have sovereign immunity from private lawsuits in the courts of other states. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to such immunity, although states are free to extend it to one another and often do.

But the court’s conservative majority overruled that decision, saying there was an implied right in the Constitution that means states “could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote Monday’s decision.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judiciary; scotus; sovereignty; statesrights; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
this case stems from California digging through an individual's household trash and the individual suing Calif in Nevada courts.
1 posted on 05/14/2019 1:52:55 AM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blueplum

How long was Dred Scott a precedent before it was overturned?


2 posted on 05/14/2019 1:55:27 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob ("Other People's Money" = The life blood of Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Just the beginning, Bob. Just the beginning.


3 posted on 05/14/2019 1:59:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I hope Ruth Bader Ginsburg spends her last days on earth watching her Liberal fantasies collapse. Poetic Supreme Court Justice.


4 posted on 05/14/2019 2:14:36 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

More proof that leftist judges are not for interpreting the US Constitution but for legislating from the bench.

JoMa


5 posted on 05/14/2019 2:17:57 AM PDT by joma89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

While California is despicable, the ruling to me seems correct provided that the digging happened in California.


6 posted on 05/14/2019 2:19:14 AM PDT by Hieronymus ("I shall drink--to the Pope, if you please,-still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

awwww, sorry liberals, but it is now SETTLED LAW.


7 posted on 05/14/2019 2:25:05 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Clarence Thomas said:

the court’s decision four decades ago in Nevada v. Hall “is contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the states that ratified the Constitution. Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent.”


8 posted on 05/14/2019 2:27:37 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joma89

the 1979 ruling was 6-3.

the two most conservative judges, Rehnquist and Burger ruled for the Constitution. The other pro-Constitution judge was “moderate” Blackmun.

Voting to ignore the founding document?
Marshall, Brennan (a major league disappointment), Stevens, White, Stewart and Powell.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-1337


9 posted on 05/14/2019 2:32:37 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
...as liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next’

Elections have consequences.

#TooBadSoSad


10 posted on 05/14/2019 2:34:36 AM PDT by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
What??!! No stare decisis?

Oh the Hugh Manatee...

11 posted on 05/14/2019 2:39:55 AM PDT by sauropod (Yield to sin, and experience chastening and sorrow; yield to God, and experience joy and blessing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; blueplum
...liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next’

All of them, Bob. All of them.

12 posted on 05/14/2019 2:41:17 AM PDT by sauropod (Yield to sin, and experience chastening and sorrow; yield to God, and experience joy and blessing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Dred Scot remained the law of the land until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, so about eight years.


13 posted on 05/14/2019 2:43:02 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Gone but not forgiven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blueplum
In today's climate is increasingly oxymoronic or even schizophrenic to be an optimist and a conservative at the same time, but now and again something pops up that gives us hope.

It smells like the conservatives on the Supreme Court are carefully laying down the precedents necessary to overturn the most outrageous of the left's decisions, especially Roe versus Wade.

This is superficially not the way justice is supposed to work but it is the way the Supreme Court has often operated, indeed if one takes a long perspective, it is the way the common law has always worked. When Brown versus the board overturned Plessy versus Ferguson, the matter was held in the court for a long time until the decision could be made unanimous. The delay, not necessarily the holding, was not a legal operation, it was purely political.

It would be nice if the Chief Justice would find a way to fashion a precedent forbidding District Court judges from usurping the role and duties of the commander-in-chief.


14 posted on 05/14/2019 2:47:54 AM PDT by nathanbedford (attack, repeat, attack! Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bagster

“...as liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next’”

The one that outlawed automatic weapons, and the one that mandated background checks for firearms.


15 posted on 05/14/2019 2:48:58 AM PDT by Beagle8U (It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Tough call for the inventor Gilbert Hyatt, because he’ll never get justice in the Fascist State of California.


16 posted on 05/14/2019 4:03:54 AM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Court was correct on the states' rights aspect of the case.

I agree that states cannot "be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts” - even though that means the festering pustule of California Natzional Socializm continues to spread its rot to the adjoining states...

17 posted on 05/14/2019 4:08:26 AM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

A very reasoned analysis. Thanks.


18 posted on 05/14/2019 4:45:19 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

“I hope Ruth Bader Ginsburg spends her last days on earth watching her Liberal fantasies collapse. Poetic Supreme Court Justice.”

But was she there...

Reminds me of the old 70s commercial, “was it live or was it Memorex.”


19 posted on 05/14/2019 4:48:50 AM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Libtards overturned 5000 years of recorded human history precedent when they decreed that marriage laws must apply to any twosome. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.


20 posted on 05/14/2019 4:50:02 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (The politicized state destroys all aspects of civil society, human kindness and private charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson