Galt's Gulch

Conservative U.S. justices draw criticism by overruling precedent again

Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 7 months ago to Government
25 comments | Share | Flag

So, when it is a liberal SCOTUS trasmpling individual rights, it's "justice", but when the court is protecting them, and not legislating from the bench it's "troubling" or "dangerous". Dangerous to who? The liberal state that wants to impose itself on everyone for the "greater good"? Shades of AS again.....There is a reason Kavanaugh was so important, and it doesn't deal with "my ideology is better", it is "leave the people alone and secure in their personal rights". Everyone wants to focus on the abortion issue which revolves around one crucial fact yet to be determined: When is a fetus a person, and so how to dyou protect it's individual rights, and balance that against the mothers? But they never want to go down that ethical dilemma road, since it is fraught with pot holes. Easier to just say it is the mothers individual rights, always. Scotus will be very active for a while. No wonder Ginsburg has been brought back to semi life with a voddoo witch doctor, embalming her would have been a big clue she is dead.....
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservative-u-justices-draw-criticism-163505620.html

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 7 months ago
    True justice involves action and consequence - nothing more and nothing less. Progressives seek to disassociate action and consequence and then assuage their guilty consciences so that they can pursue the action without facing the consequence. Such is the life of the cerebrally incontinent and inconsistent.

    I applaud the Justices not for overturning precedent, but for examining the principle behind the precedent and reevaluating whether or not the principle is in concordance with the US Constitution. Far too many progressives clamor for their "precedents" even when the precedents are demonstrably incompatible with the Constitution simply because of ideology. Their mindset is that once it is ruled on in their favor that it is forever bound in stone, yet rulings of precedence against them may be overturned. Just more hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance from the left.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
      Ayn Rand's "Causality versus Duty" explains the role of causality in morality, but justice in court decisions is not supposed to be "nothing more and nothing less" than "action and consequences". They are supposed to be about applying the law as written in a system based on the protection of the rights of the individual not whatever "consequences" someone doesn't like.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 7 months ago
    Well, Plessy vs. Ferguson was stare decisis for 58 years or so. It was brazenly unjust, and also violated the 14th Amendment, but it hung around a long time; but fortunately the Court overruled it in 1954. (By the way, who was Plessy, and who was Ferguson? I would think that one of the parties would have been a state).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by mminnick 5 years, 7 months ago
    They (SCOTUS) still needs to address the issues raised by a decision giving Government the right to seize property of an individual (usually land and houses) for the purpose of giving it to another person who will build on it a "better" building so that taxes may be raised and revenue to the city (county or state) will be increased (This happened in Connecticut about 15 years ago.
    Immanent Domain is for the seizure of property for use by the "government" not private individuals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 7 months ago
      I think the Ct case was what was cited in the article as one issue that relates to this one. That is what the liberals were all whacked out at, was this puts a dent in that idea.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
        The Connecticut case you are referring to was Kelo. This case doesn't affect that, it only acknowledges a right to sue in Federal court in defense of the bill of rights, the 5th amendment in particular, without first being bankrupted and delayed by lower courts and procedures.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 7 months ago
          I see, I just compared the two cases and Kelo was by far more onerous, and able to spawn corruption at will. Hopefully this will open the door to more cases to start dismantling the slide into unconstitutional rejection of private property rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
            Kelo concerned government taking property for private developers but paying for it (eminent domain).

            The facts behind this latest Supreme Court case concerned taking control of private property through controls, with no payment, while leaving the landowner with the deed and the tax bill (called an "inverse condemnation" or "regulatory taking"). But the legal case itself was about the procedure for challenging the taking, without overturning it.

            It is important because the "precedent" had been to make it even harder to challenge takings by imposing more burdensome procedures that denied prompt justice and drained the owner for legal fees.

            Pacific Legal Foundation has also been fighting (for decades) the substance of regulatory takings, with a couple of important victories but not enough to really stop it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
    The abortion issue which, which has nothing to do with this case, does not "revolve around one crucial fact yet to be determined: When is a fetus a person". The unborn are not persons and there was never any presumption otherwise when the Constitution was written. "How do you protect it's [sic] individual rights, and balance that against the mothers?" is a contradiction in terms. "It" has no rights and there is no "balance" protecting a woman's rights versus violating them. It is "easier to just say it is the mothers individual rights" because they are the only rights involved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
    No one is talking about the 2018 overturning of precedent in South Dakota v Wayfair, which granted previously unconstitutional powers of states to reach across state lines to impose and enforce sales taxes on non-resident businesses.

    That monstrosity was imposed by Justice Kennedy, joined by Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Neil Gorsuch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Joseph23006 5 years, 7 months ago
    Liberals have good reason to fear that laws based on precedent imposed by judicial fiat can be overturned because they relied on the court to mandate laws that they could not enact through the legislative process. Many relied on opinions handed down that were reached by curious circumlocutions implying 'rights' not specifically stated. From the start Constitutional scholars knew along with some of the justices that Roe V Wade was a poorly framed decision regardless of personal opinions. [The issue was decided not on abortion but 'privacy' between patient and doctor, which is now very public!]. Liberal are all for majority (or mob) rule until the majority votes against them and then sympathetic judges will cive them what they want.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago
      This case was not about courts mandating laws, it was about procedures for attempting to attain justice, acknowledging a civil right to sue in Federal court over violations of the 5th amendment.

      As for Roe v Wade, which is not relevant to this case, under the 9th amendment rights do not have to be enumerated. If a power is not granted to government it cannot impose it. They didn't have to "find" a right not enumerated in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution granting power to criminalize anyone on behalf of the unborn. The 14th amendment is relevant to protecting the bill of rights against state government abuse. That includes the "privacy" and a lot more they failed to spell out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 7 months ago
    Well, times are changing.

    That is the reply to whining Breyer. Isn't it liberals who constantly rub it in that we need new laws and revisions, even for the Constitution, because of change?

    That is why the previous law was overruled.

    Live with it!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo