I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don’t think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened–but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they’d need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.
While I find the Robert’s court troubling, I don’t think they’re capable of such a thing.
I said the same thing about Roe V. Wade. “The SC would never actually over rule it. The women on there wouldn’t stand for it” I said, trying to console my spouse. What a fool I was
I empathize. But Roe v Wade was never a super-precedent and while I support abortion, I (and many legal scholars) found flaws in the notion that a fundamental right to privacy is located in the 14th amendment and that that right extends to abortion. This is why I think it was a mistake that Democrats didn’t codify abortion rights when they had the chance in 2008.
I disagree. While I agree that Thomas and Alito are radicalized originalists, the rest of the court is more ambiguous. Roberts is an institutionalist with an incremental approach while Gorsuch favors textualism over originalism and occasionally swings left. Kavanaugh is a textualist with varying degrees of pragmatism on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, I find his jurisprudence to be rather clumsy. But he’s certainly left of Thomas and Alito by a wide margin. Finally, while Barrett favors originalism, she exercises independence from the conservative wing more than any other justice and I have very little concern that she’d entertain such nonsense as this.
I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don’t think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened–but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they’d need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.
While I find the Robert’s court troubling, I don’t think they’re capable of such a thing.
Let’s hope I’m right.
I said the same thing about Roe V. Wade. “The SC would never actually over rule it. The women on there wouldn’t stand for it” I said, trying to console my spouse. What a fool I was
I empathize. But Roe v Wade was never a super-precedent and while I support abortion, I (and many legal scholars) found flaws in the notion that a fundamental right to privacy is located in the 14th amendment and that that right extends to abortion. This is why I think it was a mistake that Democrats didn’t codify abortion rights when they had the chance in 2008.
The Supreme Court currently has a majority of batshit insane constitutional originalists.
They are most definitely capable of doing this.
They just have to divine some batshit insane constitutionally originalist argument that justifies it.
I disagree. While I agree that Thomas and Alito are radicalized originalists, the rest of the court is more ambiguous. Roberts is an institutionalist with an incremental approach while Gorsuch favors textualism over originalism and occasionally swings left. Kavanaugh is a textualist with varying degrees of pragmatism on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, I find his jurisprudence to be rather clumsy. But he’s certainly left of Thomas and Alito by a wide margin. Finally, while Barrett favors originalism, she exercises independence from the conservative wing more than any other justice and I have very little concern that she’d entertain such nonsense as this.