Skip to comments.A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of: Liberals are freaking out
Posted on 05/16/2019 6:58:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the things that separates leftists from normal people is their passion for political power. It is all-consuming. Among other things, this gives the Left the ability to plot and plan well in advance. This is clearly evidenced by leftists' patient march through American institutions. This was done not in one fell swoop, but step by step through the years. In solidifying their gains, the liberals are hyper-vigilant to any regression from what they've achieved in a way conservatives can only envy.
A recent little noticed U.S. Supreme Court decision illustrates this latter point. This was Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. In it, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution doesn't permit a state to be sued by a private party without its consent in the court of a different state. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the Franchise Board v. Hyatt overturned a 1979 Court decision to the contrary in Nevada v. Hall.
What puts more bite in the Franchise Board v. Hyatt decision is that Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion. Thomas is an originalist more than he is a conservative. A Court conservative, at least how liberals would define one, would honor the principle of stare decisis. This means that once a decision is made, it stays made. Thomas instead approaches cases according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. He believes if an initial decision was wrong per the original intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned.
This has the four Court liberal dissenters Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in a tizzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Here is an observation from the New York SUN as to how the liberals see the decision:
“The Right-Wing Supreme Court Is coming for Roe v. Wade,” is the headline on Splinter.com. The Liberals are “warning us” that Roe is in “mortal danger,” booms the Washington Post. The New York Times is rushing out an op-ed piece by a law professor. “The Supreme court made clear on Monday that Roe v. Wade may soon no longer be the law of the land,” it begins.
There you have it. Liberals see much of the radical and anti-democratic social structure they forced on the country through the Court’s blatant overreach threatened. This fear is compounded by the fact that the Left knows that Trump is likely to have the opportunity to make two and perhaps three more appointments to the Supreme Court before he leaves office (that is, if he wins a second term ).
Court made law is always subject to change. Theoretically courts arent supposed to make law, so reversing such decisions is more in line with the courts duties.
Tick, tick, tick, tick....
That’s not quite accurate. They worship stare decisis (as what alternative do they have?) for liberal decisions. Many of those decisions overturned conservative or Constitutional precedent but that’s fine. Only lib precedents have to be inviolable in perpetuity.
After RBG’s death but before her replacement takes the seat, can a lower court rule that her staff can prepare her ruling until the new Justice comes on board?
It would seemingly be the only really fair course of action
The Congress has and always has had the power to change any decision of the SCOTUS or any court through legislation limiting the courts’ power decide constitutionality to whatever the Congress wants.................
Another way to state that is to say that they believe in stare decisis when they’re in the minority. Like how when they’re in the minority on the legislature, they suddenly discover concern for minorities. When they won, it’s “Elections have consequences. We won. Get over it.”
This is true but the opposite corollary is that what separates so-called conservative Republican politicians from normal people is their endless capacity for weakness.
So right. Regardless of whether they win or lose, with liberals its always “let’s do it our way”.
Unfortunately Republicans are always willing to “compromise” and go along with them.
They threaten to take our guns and we threaten to take away their abortions. One of us is going to win.
Precedence dictates therell be no SCOTUS picks during an election year.
One of us is going to win.
See my tag line.
Another issue that should be under review that has more impact than abortion is; Should district courts be able to issue opinions which when applied create a national policy that conflicts with the aspects of a policy set by the executive or legislative branches.
I suppose the 4 dissenters think that Dred Scott should have been final
After all it was a 7-2 decision
The Liberals have lived by the sword of using the court system to get their way when otherwise it wasn’t possible. Judicial activists in black robes have been perverting justice for decades now and it appears the comeuppance is at hand.
Roe v Wade should overturned. It was just a bad decision and should not serve as any sort of “precedent”.
If the country wants to legalize abortion “the right way”, they should create a Constitutional Amendment which either speaks specifically about abortion, or which codifies a Right to Privacy that would legitimately lead to the legalization of abortion.
I would not support it, and I don’t think the country would ratify it. But that’s kind of the point.
Throw Roe v Wade out and walk the walk you’re supposed to walk — the proper pathway to walk down is the Amendment process.
Now the California Franchise Tax Board can legally commit Fraud, Extortion and Racketeering in other States with full immunity. What they did to this guy way back when should have Landed them in a Nevada State Prison. Thats why he initially won $300 Million in his Lawsuit.
I fail to see why Immunity should be granted in blatant criminal acts just because it was done by Government Agents.
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.