Supreme Court overturns precedent

[davsel]

Looks like the winds of change are arriving at the SCOTUS - Libs are in a tizzy.

Opposing views of what this means:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...precedent.html

One justice who apparently understands this is Clarence Thomas, who just wrote the majority opinion in a recent decision (Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt) overturning a 1979 precedent. He was the ideal candidate for the task, as it has been noted that he?s not a ?Court conservative? as much as an originalist. A conservative, after all, would hew to the status quo, which here means honoring precedent. In contrast, as SCOTUSblog pointed out in 2007, Thomas ?believes that precedent qua precedent concerning constitutional law has no value at all; he does not give stare decisis any weight.?

Staredecisis? folly should be obvious. In what other field would anyone assert that once a decision is made, it stays made? Since it?s a statistical certainty that not all decisions will be good ones, this standard only ensures the permanency of error.Yet to fully grasp stare decisis? outrageousness, an analogy is useful. Chief Justice John Roberts once correctly said that a judge?s role is only to call ?balls and strikes? (this was before he decided that a ball could be a strike when striking a blow for statism). Expanding on this, judges are in fact like baseball umpires, whereas the players are akin to the people, the sport?s ruling body is a sort of legislature and the rulebook is essentially its constitution.

Now, it goes without saying that if an umpire ?ruled? contrary to the rulebook -- let?s say, refusing to call a player out after three strikes because he believed they were too few -- we wouldn?t flatter his falsity and legitimize his legerdemain by calling him a ?pragmatist? with a ?living document? philosophy. We?d recognize him as a bad umpire derelict in his duty, and he?d be fired.
To the point, however, what would you say about someone who not only accepted his judgment, but viewed it as unchangeable ?precedent??

This notion is just as ridiculous when applied to judges -- only far more dangerous. It should in fact disqualify someone from the bench, for justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleae.../#50f90a4ccbab

?This case shows that precedent gets little weight with the conservative justices on the Roberts? Court; Justice Breyer expresses this well in his dissent,? says Erwin Chermerinsky, dean of University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, who argued the case on behalf of Hyatt in January. After the oral arguments, Chermerinsky wrote that his sense was that the discussion was really about ?how the court is going to treat precedent when issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay and lesbian rights return to the court.? In other words, will Roe v. Wade be next?

Justice Breyer, with whom Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined, said there was no good reason to overrule Hall: ?[T]he very fact?that Hall is not obviously wrong?shows that today?s majority is obviously wrong to overrule it.? The dissent warned about the potential danger of legal uncertainty going forward: ?To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the Court will overrule and which cases are here to stay.?

Hope Trump gets a few more appointments to the SCOTUS before he's done.

[CS1983]

Precedent as "conservatively" understood, and weaponized by Libs, is complete BS. Precedent should only be looked at in terms of original intent and how similar circumstances were understood in regards to original intent; a bad precedent is nothing to which anyone should adhere.

[Zundfolge]

I see 125 times that precedent was overturned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ourt_decisions

And that doesn't count the whole mess of times that SCOTUS decisions were abrogated by legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ourt_decisions

Precedent and Staredecisis are pretty much meaningless. At least according to historical precedent.

[FoxtArt]

The decision essentially complies with the 11th amendment as written -granted, it is mostly interpreted to the Federal courts, but it's an obvious extension to prohibit suits in foreign states too.

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

It's not even a conservative or liberal issue imho. People are just making headlines for clicks.

[Skip]

The decision essentially complies with the 11th amendment as written -granted, it is mostly interpreted to the Federal courts, but it's an obvious extension to prohibit suits in foreign states too.

It's not even a conservative or liberal issue imho. People are just making headlines for clicks.

It's making headlines because it's a problem for the Left when you consider how many ground breaking decisions have been forced on the American people via the Judiciary.

Imagine a gay marriage decision based on the 10th?
An abortion decision that applies the 14th?


And an honest reading of 2A, without the dead weight of previous bad decisions, what get us what? Even Scalia's opinion on Heller creates bad precedent with "not unlimited" on a civil right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[Gman]

It's the Libs & the media (same thing) trying to raise the alarm that SCOTUS has been over-run and 'there's no limit to what they might change'.

[O2HeN2]

I's all prep for the progressives, once they the hold the house, senate and presidency to expand the supreme court to who knows how many judges order to silence the right once and for all.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...322-story.html

O2