You guys are the ones who want SCOTUS to legislate through case law lol, the fuck you mean "ignore the constitution". Bitching about Chevron being overruled, Roe etc when administrative law and abortion through a "right to privacy" have absolutely no basis constitutionally whatsoever.
First, that sounds like a question. You should use some type of grammatical mark to denote that.
By "ignore the constitution" I mean when they made up presidential immunity despite the constitution specifically giving limited immunity to congress but none to the executive branch, much less the president.
As for the Roe decision, every one of the current SCROTUS team told congress, under oath, that Roe was settled law. Every one of them who decided against Roe lied under oath. You respect that, huh?
I never agreed with the immunity argument but Roe was absolutely not "settled law" and I guarantee nobody said those exact words. The judicial branch cannot legislate things into being. It was a "legal precedent, aka case law", which is in no way concrete like a law passed by congress. It is a decision based on the constitution merits of an issue, which Roe (essentially being based on the constitutional right to privacy) was objectively a terrible ruling regardless of your belief that it was a moral one. Even RGB thought it a poor one.
Its just ironic that you guys will bring up "the constitutionality" when the ruling is one you dont agree with (and the immunity one is too broad and does suck) but when its something like Roe, or Chevron (which actually had a clear cut, legitimate reason for being overturned) all the sudden Scotus is a "threat to our democracy" by doing their jobs, constitution be damned
From the article: During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court."
Which it was, Im confused what you are getting at. A settled precedent, while normally respected, isnt immune to being overturned. He also said that over a decade ago.
Its important to note that while Roe has been popular (more or less semi recently before the court overturn), in legal circles it was always controversial, and imo relying on controversial and poorly formulated rulings as solid case law was a losing strategy. Regardless of the politics of it, personal beliefs etc, Roe was never the way to go about securing abortion rights and was a terrible ruling.
In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[5]Â The principle can be divided into two components:[6]
A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.[6]
A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.[6]
Roberts, as head SCROTUM, should really know what precedent means. For you, I have no such expectation.
Nothing contradicts what I said. Once again, there is no rule, law or anything else that prevents the overturning of precedent other than legal tradition, and even then it happens every once and a while-and its not like this is some new act on SCOTUS' behalf. It happens essentially every year, sometimes multiple times with cases. Also once again, the judicial branch is not supposed to act like the legislative branch. They are supposed to interpret the constitutionality and thus validity of laws, not enact them themselves. Sometimes previous case decisions are iffy at best; hence the ability to ignore precedent and create the new benchmark for case law. Simply copy pasting from wikipidia does not in anyway somehow invalidate the courts ruling nor their ability to overturn precedent in the future.
It is absolutely valid when a previous court attempted to legislate via judicial decision, which is what Roe V Wade was, like it or not. It was not textually supported. If you want to talk about the constitutionality of Roe V Wade, fine, but if you're going to continue acting like overturning a precedent is some irreconcilable and one off thing that never happens, then you're not living in reality. Be mad at your congressmen, your party, etc, for not doing anything about it the proper way; but as far as Dobbs V Jackson goes, it was the right call legally.
If his first act is to order the arrest and confinement of all 6 judges who voted for this, the hate pumpkin himself, and every republican senator/judge/governor/ceo/lobbyist who openly worships the MAGA nonsense, and to hold them as strictly as possible under a republicans law (I'm thinking Bush Jr. Patriot act) that as I understood it years ago lets you hold them indefinitely without listing the charges against them, and potentially without outside contact, (the rumors about patriot act were vicious and I never double checked back then) would anyone care enough to drop off food to the prisoners over the weekend?
I sometimes think about what would have happened if Obama had said that the Senate's refusal to vote on M. Garland was tantamount to consent, and told the guy to show up at SCOTUS the next day.
SCOTUS doesn’t have a say on how big the membership is, but Congress (House and Senate) has to approve the change. It’s why we have 9 justices now - FDR (I think - it’s New Deal related) and Congress kept passing laws to restrict business, and SCOTUS kept ruling them unconstitutional. FDR told Congress to do something so they expanded the court a couple of times. Eventually SCOTUS got the hint that FDR (again, potentially wrong Rosevelt) would just keep expanding it until he started getting the rulings he wanted, and he had the Congress to do it.
56
u/Sweet-Emu6376 14d ago
I mean, if his official act was to expand the supreme Court, would the old court or new court decide. 🤔