New Studies Show Supreme Courts Imperial Behavior Really Is Unprecedented

[pknopp]

The meaning is only constitutionally when the legislator makes new law not judicial activism

The courts were put in place to address the "Living Document". (Founders description)

 

[BS Filter]

And yet so very much more successful and paid attention to more than you will EVER be.

Successful? Newspapers are dying.

 

[JustAGuy1]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

More Prog crap

 

[JustAGuy1]

The courts were put in place to address the "Living Document". (Founders description)

Source?

 

[struth]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

what precedent of the last 100 years have they thrown out?

 

[Indeependent]

Source?

DailyKOS!

 

[pknopp]

Source?

Taken solely at the words written, the second does not grant gun ownership to individuals.

Taken in context to how it was used through, history it does. Someone is in charge of determining that.

 

[struth]

Taken solely at the words written, the second does not grant gun ownership to individuals.

Taken in context to how it was used through, history it does. Someone is in charge of determining that.

yeah it does....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[pknopp]

yeah it does....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There you go changing the words.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One has to be in charge of determining what all of that means.

 

[struth]

There you go changing the words.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One has to be in charge of determining what all of that means.

what words did i change?

I agree with your second point, that's why we have the Judicial branch...they say what IS the law

 

[JustAGuy1]

Taken solely at the words written, the second does not grant gun ownership to individuals.

Taken in context to how it was used through, history it does. Someone is in charge of determining that.

So you have nothing. Got it.

 

[pknopp]

So you have nothing. Got it.

So courts don't decide the meaning and it wasn't designed that way?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The courts were put in place to address the "Living Document". (Founders description)

Their is no living document

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Taken solely at the words written, the second does not grant gun ownership to individuals.

Taken in context to how it was used through, history it does. Someone is in charge of determining that.

People are individuals

 

[JustAGuy1]

So courts don't decide the meaning and it wasn't designed that way?

You have nothing proves the Founders called it a "living document"? Sorry

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

Based on what metric?

 

[BS Filter]

So courts don't decide the meaning and it wasn't designed that way?

So by the term "living document", you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of changing times and societal trends. Correct?

 

[pknopp]

So by the term "living document", you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of changing times and societal trends. Correct?

I believe there can legitimately be more than one interpretation.

 

[bripat9643]

If you say so.

Your Right to Privacy of Your Medical Records - Neufeld O'Leary & Giusto

You have a right of privacy of your medical records under the U.S. Constitution. These rights aren’t unlimited, but you can sue if someone violates them.

www.noglaw.com

What makes his opinion the final word?

 

[bripat9643]

So by the term "living document", you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of changing times and societal trends. Correct?

The term "living document" is a scam used to justify ignoring it.