So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[martybegan]

They overturned Roe vs. Wade, a direct infringement upon the Constitution.

In fact, the Founding Fathers would not have even revolted against the British crown had they been allowed to murder their unborn babies.

Next, we can say bye bye to Chevron Deference.

 

[martybegan]

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Supreme Court Decision


In 303 Creative, the plaintiff alleged that she wanted to create wedding websites for engaged couples, though she argued that her religious beliefs would not allow her to create wedding websites for LGBTQ+ couples. At the core of the plaintiff’s argument was that wedding websites are a form of expression, and she was concerned that the public accommodations law in Colorado, her home state, would require her to design such a website anyway.

The Supreme Court held that a state public-accommodations law cannot compel expressive speech, even if that speech is connected to a commercial transaction.

The conservative supreme court broke with the requirement "standing" and "ripe" in order to hear the case, which was not an actual case of being forced to create a website, but a "hypothetical" case, of if they went into the website business in the future.

That's what makes them activist.

Re-enforcing the 1st amendment is activist?

 

[postman]

Citizens United.

Citizens United v FEC

Granting citizenship (constitutional rights) to corporations.

 

[TNHarley]

How about overturning a decision that was made 7-2 and overturned 5-4. After they swore it was settled law.

Plessy VS ferguson was a 7-1 decision that was overturned 60 years later.
I assume segregation was "settled law" as well.

 

[Votto]

Re-enforcing the 1st amendment is activist?

Aagin, you are taking the words in the First Amendment at face value

Stop it!!

 

[SeaMajor7]

Marxists gonna Marx.

 

[postman]

Next, we can say bye bye to Chevron Deference.

Where the activist court says they get to decide, instead of the experts in government.

 

[postman]

Re-enforcing the 1st amendment is activist?

The case wasn't "ripe" it was a "hypothetical", and as such didn't even have "standing".

They were activist by taking a case they were not allowed to take under Article 3 of the constitution.

 

[Votto]

Marxists gonna Marx.

Marxism? What does that even mean?

I bet you think you even know what a woman is.

What right wing lunatics!!

 

[postman]

Plessy VS ferguson was a 7-1 decision that was overturned 60 years later.
I assume segregation was "settled law" as well.

Exactly my point. 7-1 was overturned 9-0

A UNANAMOUS court overturned a lesser decision.

 

[TNHarley]

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Supreme Court Decision


In 303 Creative, the plaintiff alleged that she wanted to create wedding websites for engaged couples, though she argued that her religious beliefs would not allow her to create wedding websites for LGBTQ+ couples. At the core of the plaintiff’s argument was that wedding websites are a form of expression, and she was concerned that the public accommodations law in Colorado, her home state, would require her to design such a website anyway.

The Supreme Court held that a state public-accommodations law cannot compel expressive speech, even if that speech is connected to a commercial transaction.

The conservative supreme court broke with the requirement "standing" and "ripe" in order to hear the case, which was not an actual case of being forced to create a website, but a "hypothetical" case, of if they went into the website business in the future.

That's what makes them activist.

The SC never takes up petitions to the SC?

 

[postman]

The SC never takes up petitions to the SC?

Article 3 of the constitution prohibits the court from taking "hypothetical" cases. They can only hear "real" cases, where the parties have suffered, or will suffer actual harm.

An example is when the SC refused to hear the "line item veto" case brought by six senators because they were not harmed.

 

[martybegan]

Where the activist court says they get to decide, instead of the experts in government.

Where in the constitution does it say "experts in government" get to decide things?

The legislature legislates, the executive executes, and the judiciary interprets.

 

[postman]

Where in the constitution does it say "experts in government" get to decide things?

The legislature legislates, the executive executes, and the judiciary interprets.

That's what article 2 is all about.

The executives executing. And by that, they get to promulgate the regulations made by experts, and not by courts.

 

[TNHarley]

Exactly my point. 7-1 was overturned 9-0

A UNANAMOUS court overturned a lesser decision.

And? It was 60 years later. But this is different because one person dissented?

 

[TNHarley]

or will suffer actual harm.

Which is what the case was about.

 

[jc456]

That's what article 2 is all about.

The executives executing. And by that, they get to promulgate the regulations made by experts, and not by courts.

quote the paragraph from the Executive Branch?

 

[postman]

And? It was 60 years later. But this is different because one person dissented?

It was very different because more justices voted FOR Roe v Wade, (and the cases that upheld it) than voted to OVERTURN Roe v Wade.

7-1 FOR - 5-4 AGAINST.

That's not even close

 

[TNHarley]

experts in government.

 

[postman]

Which is what the case was about.

The case was a hypothetical. They were not in the website business.

That was a pure speculation about what they "might" do in the future.

Courts are to reject cases until they are "ripe", in order for the plaintiff to have "standing"

You can look it up.