16 votes

The conservative Supreme Court's favorite judicial philosophy requires a very, very firm grasp of history — one that none of the justices seem to possess

3 comments

  1. [3]
    NaraVara
    Link
    This is an excellent article and it also could have been written as early as Bush v. Gore in 2000.

    This is an excellent article and it also could have been written as early as Bush v. Gore in 2000.

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      HotPants
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Bush V Gore - not to be used as precedent. Dissenters Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter noted the breathtaking upending of the majority’s usual deference to state court interpretations of...

      “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

      Bush V Gore - not to be used as precedent.

      Dissenters Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter noted the breathtaking upending of the majority’s usual deference to state court interpretations of state law, even when federal rights are at stake.

      But that was back when the court tried to maintain an aura of respectability.

      Now it has become precedent by overruling state courts interpretation of state constitutions and simply saying let the illegal gerrymandered district lines remain, effectively allowing states lawmakers to gerrymander as they see fit.

      Oh hang on, this just in, they also over-ruled the fifth circuit in Ardoin v. Robinson

      Just, wow.

      Under these maps, Black voters will control just one of Louisiana’s six congressional seats, despite the fact that African Americans make up nearly a third of the state’s population.

      Fifth circuit: We are the most conservative set of judges you will ever meet, and this shit is too racist even for us.

      Supreme court: Oh yeah? This country has a fine history of racism. Therefore this map is fine.

      10 votes
      1. GnomeChompski
        Link Parent
        I think it's fair to say that the writing is on the walls with respect to The Supreme Court and case law. Overturning Roe v Wade and West Virginia V EPA are just an opening salvo. This is all in...

        I think it's fair to say that the writing is on the walls with respect to The Supreme Court and case law. Overturning Roe v Wade and West Virginia V EPA are just an opening salvo. This is all in accordance to the new SCOTUS majority interpretations based on Constitutional Originalism.

        What scares me is that it's not a stretch of imagination to see that this can get much more unpleasant as time will go on.

        Ardoin v. Robinson is a thinly veiled call back to the Three-fifths Compromise and there is no need to interpret the original intent of the drafters since the Three-fifths Compromise is right there, written into the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

        I know the 14th Amendment corrected the wrong and that we won't go that far backwards, but it's hard to deny that we are heading that direction.

        The judicial branch of our republic has been gamed and I have no faith in it anymore.

        6 votes