"The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie." - It's political cover. And also cover to pick and choose which unenumerated to keep vs toss.
I couldn't help but notice the parallel to Bush v Gore. Same concept. SCOTUS wants to control how they open the flood gates.
"The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie." - It's political cover. And also cover to pick and choose which unenumerated to keep vs toss.
I couldn't help but notice the parallel to Bush v Gore. Same concept. SCOTUS wants to control how they open the flood gates.
Yes, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read it. What a crock! Trust me, this will never happen.
As a manager in a unionized labor environment, whenever in a grievance the parties came to a stipulated resolution, both sides always agreed to a clause that stated something like "this ruling shall not be construed as binding or precedent in future grievances" -- and of course it always was. I think we always put it in there just because it was ridiculous and everyone knew it would be ignored, and everyone needs a good laugh at the end of a grievance arbitration.
"The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie." - It's political cover. And also cover to pick and choose which unenumerated to keep vs toss.
I couldn't help but notice the parallel to Bush v Gore. Same concept. SCOTUS wants to control how they open the flood gates.
Yes, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read it. What a crock! Trust me, this will never happen.
As a manager in a unionized labor environment, whenever in a grievance the parties came to a stipulated resolution, both sides always agreed to a clause that stated something like "this ruling shall not be construed as binding or precedent in future grievances" -- and of course it always was. I think we always put it in there just because it was ridiculous and everyone knew it would be ignored, and everyone needs a good laugh at the end of a grievance arbitration.