The recent anti-Roe decision marks the success of a decades long attack on the old Warren Court, mostly because the Warren Court was the one court to finally deal with the mistreatment of African Americans that was the nations shame, and continued in spite of rights that should have been granted after the Civil War.
The recent anti-Roe decision marks the success of a decades long attack on the old Warren Court, mostly because the Warren Court was the one court to finally deal with the mistreatment of African Americans that was the nations shame, and continued in spite of rights that should have been granted after the Civil War.
There is an astonishing degree of arrogance in the Federalist Society judges, as if the only way to judge is in the cramped manner of strict constructionists (or whatever new nonsense is developed to allow judges to reach decisions that they already know they want to reach).
Our founders really did believe that there were rights not enumerated. Hamilton did, so did Madison. And it was also clear that at least some of the founders believed that the constitution would evolve - as English law had. Jefferson was against the evolution of the law, yet when he needed the power to purchase the Louisiana territory, he did it, even if he was on record that he did not have the power.
Sam Alito scoffed at a right to privacy, as if he could not imagine how we would know that our founders believed in such a right, yet the protections against unlawful search and seizure or against testifying against oneself - even the notion “don’t tread on me” are all at heart expressions of the right to be left alone - privacy.
By the way, the right to self defense would also be a non-enumerated right. The problem with extrapolating about a personal right to own guns from an amendment clearly about militias is that militias were the owners of guns, musket balls and gunpowder - though a few men did own their own weapons but the typical high school aged militia man did not own his own gun. So the amendment was about the right to gather for the common defense.
And the current agreement by the court to review the Trump ere rule about immigration -clearly a COVID rule - suggests that the conservatives are full of shit. They are intervening in a matter where the legislature has failed. And if you believe that judges have to be flexible - then their intervention is reasonable, but if looking at the text - at what power a president has under the law, there seems no basis at all in intervening.
In an court that honors stare decisis, the court’s actions make sense. But if the conservatives are true to their bullshit - then they should not have taken the case at all.
The recent anti-Roe decision marks the success of a decades long attack on the old Warren Court, mostly because the Warren Court was the one court to finally deal with the mistreatment of African Americans that was the nations shame, and continued in spite of rights that should have been granted after the Civil War.
There is an astonishing degree of arrogance in the Federalist Society judges, as if the only way to judge is in the cramped manner of strict constructionists (or whatever new nonsense is developed to allow judges to reach decisions that they already know they want to reach).
Our founders really did believe that there were rights not enumerated. Hamilton did, so did Madison. And it was also clear that at least some of the founders believed that the constitution would evolve - as English law had. Jefferson was against the evolution of the law, yet when he needed the power to purchase the Louisiana territory, he did it, even if he was on record that he did not have the power.
Sam Alito scoffed at a right to privacy, as if he could not imagine how we would know that our founders believed in such a right, yet the protections against unlawful search and seizure or against testifying against oneself - even the notion “don’t tread on me” are all at heart expressions of the right to be left alone - privacy.
By the way, the right to self defense would also be a non-enumerated right. The problem with extrapolating about a personal right to own guns from an amendment clearly about militias is that militias were the owners of guns, musket balls and gunpowder - though a few men did own their own weapons but the typical high school aged militia man did not own his own gun. So the amendment was about the right to gather for the common defense.
And the current agreement by the court to review the Trump ere rule about immigration -clearly a COVID rule - suggests that the conservatives are full of shit. They are intervening in a matter where the legislature has failed. And if you believe that judges have to be flexible - then their intervention is reasonable, but if looking at the text - at what power a president has under the law, there seems no basis at all in intervening.
In an court that honors stare decisis, the court’s actions make sense. But if the conservatives are true to their bullshit - then they should not have taken the case at all.