AG Garland on lawsuit against TX abortion law. "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents," he said. "Nor one need think hard or long to realize the damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws that empower any private individual to infringe on another's constitutionally protected rights in this way. The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights." I’m afraid this scheme is a golden opportunity for 5 sitting members of the high court. They may privately agree with the harms but their desire for state rights over federal is very strong.
That's the lede of this story. Either she's trolling or just utterly tone deaf. I actually believe it's the latter - judges have people kissing their ass for decades and become clueless to outside perception and start drinking their own kool aid. See Breyer, J.
Between this and Amy Coney Barrett’s remarks I’m convinced that the timing is intentional because they realize they massively are overstepping on the overturning of Roe, and trying to play politics themselves in order to keep Biden and the Dems from expanding the courts. This is like the Yankees saying that teams need to start acting like there is a salary cap in order to respect fairness and compete needs in baseball.
One of the most partisan judges of all time, criticizing judges for becoming partisan. Next thing you will hear him complain about is activist judges overturning precedence...
Pretty sure he means judicial interpretation of any substantive rights in general, which means things like gay marriage, the right not to be prosecuted for gay sex, abortion, privacy, miscegenation, parental rights - all of those and more are supposed to be decided by state legislatures, or perhaps Congress.
He is partisan as hell, and he's the only justice that doesn't care about precedence. Pretty sure he argues that it means nothing to him.
I wouldn't say he is partisan, as that would imply he would do whatever some political party told him to do. He is consistent. Precedent (or more accurately stare decisis) means nothing to him because he doesn't think past wrong decisions should be allowed to stand in defiance of the Constitution, which is supposed to be the law that the other laws are measured against. I agree with him. Just because some other judges 50 or 100 or 200 years ago decided a case based on how they wanted the outcome to turn out instead of following the constitution, that doesn't mean we should go along with that and maintain that as the new standard. There are Supreme Court decisions that are flagrantly unconstitutional, and they should not bind future decisions.
The best part of that was the beginning when he says “condescending media elites”. Because a Yale Law grad and one of 9 Supreme Court Justices is NOT elite. Oooh scary writers and media personalities with their BA’s in journalism (if that)! I don’t respect using buzz words that are meaningless beyond political semiotics.
The funny part is these clowns get treated with kid gloves by " condescending media elites "so they can get access, book deals etc. https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/legal-journalism-is-broken/ The best commentary unsurprisingly tends to not come from inside Castle Nine
This is a fair take, but there needs to be balance. Many of these cases aren't black and white. Swinging the pendulum too often in close interpretative decisions can lead to confusing enforcement that just makes it impractical for everyone. There already is a court critieria for overturning precedent - things like reliance are a part of it. Regarding partisanship, I'll give him more credit than Alito, who is a selective ass because he knows when he's inconsistent and does it anyways, but less credit than Scalia.
Scalia was more partisan than Thomas. He was all against the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause until a pot growing case came before the court (Gonzales v. Raich). Then suddenly the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause can be used to allow the federal government prevent people from growing mar1juana for their own personal medical use. That was the decision that convinced me Thomas was a better and more faithful guardian of the Constitution than Scalia.
I'm aware of the case and I think I've read this point from you before. It's not that huge of a stretch when there's Filburn as precedent. Of course, the Commerce Clause has grown in meaning since the Framers, but that hasn't necessarily been an incorrect interpretation. A narrow reading is why the Civil Rigts Acts were struck down during Reconstruciton. A narrow reading would have continued to strike down the Civil Rights Act 90 years later. Forcing hotels and restaurants to serve black people wasn't a novel idea in the 1960's - it was already law in the 1860's when SCOTUS said, "sorry Congress, you can't do that. Let the states decide." Also, Thomas is not always a guardian imo. His dissent in the cussing cheerleader case was pretty out there. His whining concurrence about how social media should be treated as common carriers instead of having 1st Amendment powers is also opposite of his peers' interpretation. Happy day after Constitution Day.
