I don't believe it does.
It certainly can't do it for hypothetical facts and proclaim them an actual case.
Basically, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in this case (as Kagan pointed out in her dissent).
SCOTUS LGBTQ JUDGMENT
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
It certainly can't do it for hypothetical facts and proclaim them an actual case.
Basically, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in this case (as Kagan pointed out in her dissent).
The first link in my research that got me in this path was:
The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe
The justices who decided to overturn the abortion rights precedent of Roe v. Wade explained their reasoning, and signaled other precedents could be reversed as well.
theconversation.com
"The court’s historic periods are often characterized by who led it as chief justice. From 1953 until 2020, under the successive leadership of Chief Justices Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and now John Roberts, the court overturned constitutional precedent 32, 32, 30 and 15 times, respectively. That is well under 1% of decisions handled during each period in the court’s history."
From there I corroborated and verified the information with other sources, and while the frequency may seem higher given 2 cases so rapidly, I'm not sure 2 cases makes a trend. Obviously if it keeps happening I may be alarmed again, but for now I'm prepared to accept these Justices may be no more "activist" than previous.
Thanks.The first link in my research that got me in this path was:
The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe
The justices who decided to overturn the abortion rights precedent of Roe v. Wade explained their reasoning, and signaled other precedents could be reversed as well.
"The court’s historic periods are often characterized by who led it as chief justice. From 1953 until 2020, under the successive leadership of Chief Justices Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and now John Roberts, the court overturned constitutional precedent 32, 32, 30 and 15 times, respectively. That is well under 1% of decisions handled during each period in the court’s history."
From there I corroborated and verified the information with other sources, and while the frequency may seem higher given 2 cases so rapidly, I'm not sure 2 cases makes a trend. Obviously if it keeps happening I may be alarmed again, but for now I'm prepared to accept these Justices may be no more "activist" than previous.
I'll look at this later.
My first instinct is that this is going to suffer from a bias (in the neutral form of the term) based on definitions.
But maybe not! I could be wrong there.
Defining "activist" as "overturning precedent" seems an odd definition.
I'm also confused by you saying "two cases so rapidly". Which two cases are you thinking of?
That'sv why I used the quotes. The nonsense we've heard about "activist" judges has recently come from a certain group *cough MAGA cough* and they've used it to mean "ruling politically rather than the intent or spirit of the law", so I've borrowed the term but put in quotes because while it's a silly definition, I was trying to avoid this whole explanation. So that sure didn't go as planned.
This one and Roe v Wade.
Ya what's
What is going on down there is nothing short of insane - the SCOTUS has taken on a tactical assault to the laws of the land and nobody can stop them. At this rate the American version of sharia law will be in full effect by 2025. Are these the most pressing issues to the country today ?
Dobbs struck down Roe v Wade explicitly.That'sv why I used the quotes. The nonsense we've heard about "activist" judges has recently come from a certain group *cough MAGA cough* and they've used it to mean "ruling politically rather than the intent or spirit of the law", so I've borrowed the term but put in quotes because while it's a silly definition, I was trying to avoid this whole explanation. So that sure didn't go as planned.
This one and Roe v Wade.
This one (and the Affirmative Action one) don't overturn any Supreme Court precedent or previous decisions, do they?
Ah, I thought this was the Affirmative Action thread. So the two cases are Roe v Wade and SFFA v Harvard/SFFA v UNC.
Absolutely. But that doesn't explain or justify Dodds - which is just a reversal of a prior ruling, due to a differently constituted Bench. There was no intervening political shift of opinion or new insight into social conditions, as would explain the anti segregation and civil rights decisions of the 1950 - 1980 era.
Corrupt Clarence Thomas told us, just about anything that's not explicitly implied in Constitution is up to be reversed.....except inter-racial marriage, I wonder why Clarence!
Clarence Thomas wants SCOTUS to reconsider decisions on gay marriage, contraceptives
Thomas said that "any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous.'"
www.axios.com
Last edited:
But only Dobbs directly overturned a previous ruling. The Affirmative Action ruling doesn't and neither does the Creative 303.
That's the issue I have with the piece you linked - he is right that the Roberts court is running about half speed in precedent overturning compared to the post WWII numbers, but considering he was arguing how that record made it unlikely the court would overturn Roe I don't think it is a great argument, and I don't think whatever he is counting as "overturning precedent" is a useful measure of "activism".
That said, I do think it is still worth noting that they aren't explicitly overturning their own precedents at the same pace as previous courts, but I'd like to see some info on why. Was there a larger ideological majority in some of those past courts that we are just seeing replicated now? Is it that Roberts is more careful to gut previous rulings without explicitly overturning them? Or maybe there really is a good argument for saying this court isn't as activist as the press coverage about it makes it seem?
LOL.....Lefties lose another one
They're not having a good week.
Here's another loss: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ame...n-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375
Yes they did take away rights from women but what rights did they take away from minorities or LGBT?
Google is your friend
June 30 (Reuters) - In a blow to LGBT rights, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Friday ruled that the constitutional right to free speech allows certain businesses to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, a decision that the dissenting liberal justices called a "license to discriminate
Grutter v Bollinger (2003) and Regents of University of California v Bakke (1978). I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what role the term "directly" plays in you post, but to a layman the SFFA rulings clearly overturn (as someone unlearned on the law defines the term) previous ones.
Last edited:
Reporter discovers man named in 303 Creative case is not gay and did not request a wedding website
Michael Steele is joined by Melissa Gira Grant, writer for The New Republic and Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General during the Obama administration who argued and won a major win for voting rights in the landmark Moore v. Harper case this week. Grant discusses her reporting that the man...
This LGBTQ and freedom of speech case stinks to high heaven, lies and right-wing dark money make this a phony case. She wasn't even in business and the lawyers lied about a request from a gay couple!
Lefties did not lose the American people did.LOL.....Lefties lose another one
They're not having a good week.
Here's another loss: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ame...n-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375
Does that mean they can't have someone else build them a website? Lots of businesses can refuse services for various reasons. Some places have a no shirt no shoes policy. Aren't they discriminating? Some places like upscale clubs or restaurants you can't wear jeans or have to wear a tie. You can also be fired for your political beliefs or comments you make that aren't illegal Some people can also get fired for moral reasons or have morality clauses at their workplace. This is no different. While I don't agree with it, the lady believes being gay is a sin and goes against her beliefs and doesn't want to do business with them
