Posted on 06/28/2018 9:33:58 PM PDT by lowbuck
Enjoy the read.
I’m still extremely ticked off that the NR gang did their best to make sure the Dems picked Scalia and Kennedy’s replacements.
Thing is abortion law would most likely become a states issue again. Gah rights need to revert back to states as well, it was unconstituional to override the will of the people in so many states.
I suspect the entire concept of “protected classes” will at some point come up against an originalist interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. That is likely to be a fairly fundamental change in the directions that law has been bent around the conflicting demands of “Social” Justice. The Left would not be pleased. And it’s long overdue.
So, from the outset, Leftist judges lie when they take their oath to follow the Constitution. Oh, and that includes Roberts too, as he found he could ‘reword’ ‘penalty’ into the word ‘tax’ even though the Government lawyers argued IT WAS NOT TO BE CALLED A TAX.
Well, to be honest, NR’s no different than the majority of pundits who first said Trump would quickly drop out after he waived the flag a bit, then would drop out because he failed to win Iowa, then would drop out...
And they were absolutely sure that the polished (and dirty and underhanded cheating) machine of Clinton’s would swiftly roll up any Trump campaign, especially since he’d face so much resistance within his own party.
If you follow that original supposition, it makes more than a bit of sense that NR wanted to push Trump away and when that failed, try to push Clinton towards a ‘compromise’ win, especially with a GOP controlled legislature.
NR was dead wrong. But NR epitomizes the GOP in the blue states who surrender at the first chance and push forward candidates who aren’t quite as liberal as their Democrat opponents. The various state GOP organizations are still doing that and the Trump coattails might get a few of those liberals in GOP pajamas over the finish line.
At the end of the day, while this is a great piece, it lacks the definitive statement: We’ve tried it the liberal way, it sucks, let’s try it some other way rather than repeating the same path that gives us awful results.
Good read. Things to ponder and speculate on. We need another Scalia. Hope DJT can get very close.
Waiting to hear the excuses when Trump picks a girl or a RINO. He’s not gonna’ battle for the Constitution. He doesn’t care.
I hope I’m wrong.
Trump did well with his first, recent pick,
I expect he will do well again.
Constitutional Law and Justice based on original intent and devoid of political and social desires of the Supreme Court Justices.
If you do not like The Constitution change it via Constitutional amendment. We have many times in the past.
I would like to point out that though the Left is screaming about tyranny and fascism with more origionalism we would actually see the ability of the federal to engage in these erode (well, keeping in mind I’m talking actual fascism, the Left apparently holds that getting in the way of their sex and partying is fascism, as well as doing anything that erodes the power of the federal to do good as the Left defines doing good).
Well, so did FDR when he took his oath.
To think, Mr. No Repeal Eisenhower could have saved the nation from the ruin that now we may only be able to put off for a little while extra.
No.
We need another Thomas.
He is the one who is willing to look at past decisions and say, this is wrong.
Scalia was a bit to enamored of stare decisis.
I don’t think Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned. It’s the law of the land. Most likely we will see SCOTUS allow states make restrictions on late term abortions, I think that’s about it.
Rumors are he wants to retire. Justice Thomas should have to find 3 more like him to replace Kennedy, Buzzie and Sotomeyer or stay the course. Watch for a replay of his confirmation on Kennedy’s replacement. His was a travesty.
Yep. Thomas all the way. Loved US v Lopez
Can someone please explain to me what the state interest is in "diversity?"
I see no public interest in a policy of forced diversity.
I can't find the passage in the Constitution that demands it.
It is an unjust law. Unjust laws will have a hard time standing when the best legal minds, in the mold of men like James Wilson, have a swing at it.
“ to dramatically limit free speech (or even compel speech, as California attempted to do to pro-life crisis-pregnancy centers in NIFLA)”
This is also more or less what the left has tried to do in the cases of the Christian bakers-not only suppress their right to oppose sodomite mirage in principle, but to then also force them to express a view abhorrent to their consciences. This is utterly abhorrent to ME and to other Christians, not to mention galling, infuriating, and totalitarian.
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.