—
With each new activist ruling, the SCOTUS is deepening its already questionable legitimacy. They are routinely and blithely overturning long standing precedents — despite their assurances to respect the very same, during their Senate confirmations.
The composition of this court has always been a primary reason, for me voting democratic down the ticket. Always. Recent rulings make plain the consequences of treating the SCOTUS as a secondary, or even tertiary, consideration.
There will be many more such activist apple-cart flipping rulings, before any semblance of “balance” is returned to this once-respected American institution. Trump and McConnell conspired to stack the court to the extreme right. First with denial of Obama’s pick based on the argument of “letting the voters decide”; and second with the rushing through of Amy Coney Barrett, by ignoring that very same argument.
If neither of those things had occurred — we’d have a balanced court right now. A court that most Americans could respect. A court where the Federalist Society’s “agenda” would not be Job One.
Most Americans don’t like cheating — either in our sports, our finances, or our politics. It is usually a slam dunk to appeal to our sense of “fair play” while campaigning — thus the suggested branding:
The Trump Supreme Court was not established fairly. The Trump Supreme Court lied in their “Job interviews.” The Trump Supreme Court MUST be brought back into balance.
It is only the fair thing to do.
Whether by term limits, or expanding the Court, or impeaching corrupt Justices — the Trump Supreme Court MUST be brought back into some sort of balance.
Winning back majorities in the House and Senate, and keeping the White House, are essential in order to accomplish any of these remedies. Dems would be wise to make this a Campaign issue, especially now that most people have woken up to the immediate infringement, that the Trump Supreme Court is imposing on our day to day lives — with each new fabricated decision.
Civil Rights deconstruction is underway by these activist judges. It must be slowed and reversed before they level the entire edifice.
— —
Stare Decisis—a Latin term that means “let the decision stand” or “to stand by things decided”—is a foundational concept in the American legal system. To put it simply, stare decisis holds that courts and judges should honor “precedent”—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable—and less seemingly random.
www.americanbar.org
It is such an important principle of jurisprudence, most prospective SCOTUS Nominees are questioned repeatedly on how seriously they will treat the principle of Stare Decisis — during their “job interviews” … AKA their Senate Confirmations.
Most prospective SCOTUS Nominees take such questioning very seriously — no doubt, they have prepped for them, with their canned solemn answers. Once they are “on the job” however — that faux solemnity promptly goes out the window.
[...]
During his 2018 confirmation hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh called Roe “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another appointee of former President Donald Trump, said during his 2017 confirmation hearing, “all precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court deserves the respect of precedent, which is quite a lot. It is the anchor of law. It is the starting place for a judge.”
[...]
Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee who authored last week’s opinion overturning Roe, told senators in his 2006 hearing that stare decisis is “a very important doctrine.”
He called it a “fundamental part of our legal system” because it “limits the power of the judiciary” and reflects “the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.”
[...]
www.eenews.net
Funny, if the average employee “lied” like this in their interview process, they could lose their job, or at least expect it to come up in their annual review, where remedial course corrections would be taken.
The Justices of the Trump Supreme Court however, are NOT your “average employees.”
[...]
In her 2020 hearing, [Amy Coney] Barrett was pressed on why she would characterize Brown v. Board of Education, but not Roe V. Wade, as super precedent.
“Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that does not mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. The Board that no one questions anymore,” she said.
[...]
During his 2005 confirmation hearing, [John] Roberts [Jr.] said that overruling precedent like Roe is “a jolt to the legal system” and that “precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.”
He continued: “It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn’t answer the question. It just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis,” he said.
www.nbcnews.com
They talk a good game when their “dream job” is on the line. But all those “evenhanded” principles go out the window once they get the gig. Whether the plaintiff has actual “standing” or not. No matter, fugetaboutit!
Talk about your untouchable “tenured” positions: Supreme Justices for Life. Let no one question their intentions, or critique their hammers in search of that next nail.
Or there will be all manner of wrath and unpleasantness on the bench … along with the continuing erosion of our personal rights and freedoms, that most Americans have grown to — simply expect — you know, as givens.
But what the SCOTUS has given, the Trump SCOTUS — can simply take away.
—
— —
If only there were some justice left in the world ...
perjury
Generally, a witness in a trial commits perjury when they knowingly and intentionally lie about a material issue.
www.law.cornell.edu
Unless you’re lying to the Senate — then Nevermind!
— —