32163704

5 ms·

1.
by 32163704 4y ago
Sure. When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” [0] But the prior decision was certainly workable, since it had bee
2.
by 32163704 4y ago
> Now decades of an activist judiciary have distorted that concept as the legislative branch has chosen to abdicate their responsibility for their own gain, but the fact still stands, congress should be making the laws and the courts dec
3.
by 32163704 4y ago
People in the US are free to not get raped, too, but unfortunately there are circumstances where that freedom is severely abridged.
4.
by 32163704 4y ago
> that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there. We’re already there. That’s already happened. Stare decisis — remember when all the justices who
5.
by 32163704 4y ago
Agreed. If it does stand, it will be in order to maintain ideological consistency, not judicial consistency. What a mess.
6.
by 32163704 4y ago
I believe the process you’re talking about is called incorporation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of... The Court will rely on this precedent where convenient, I suspect.
7.
by 32163704 4y ago
>and lower courts can and do refuse to enforce laws on that basis Courts don't enforce laws, but I get what you mean. I have no confidence whatsoever that appellate courts will do anything about these laws. There has been a willful,
8.
by 32163704 4y ago
>I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut. Out of curiosity, what about the current makeup of appellate courts in this region + the Supreme Court makes you think th
9.
by 32163704 4y ago
Bills in general aren't laws, they are proposals for laws. [0] [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/help/bills
10.
by 32163704 4y ago
The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply. Think I'm joking? This is the stated judicial philosophy of the majority of Supreme Court justices. There is no traditional deeply root
11.
by 32163704 4y ago
>How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? Laws are allowed until the Court rules on them. The states can pass all manner of fucked up laws (and they will), and they will stand while we figure this out -- or, until
12.
by 32163704 4y ago
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, &
13.
by 32163704 4y ago
Yep. That's why my therapist said, “sometimes people are depressed because their life just sucks, so let’s see if that’s the case before we consider a chemical intervention.” Notice two things about this statement: "Sometimes.&quo
14.
by 32163704 4y ago
> Poverty, insecure work, sexism, racism, interpersonal conflict, etc all clearly associate with depression. The vast sums of money spent on looking for the chemical equation of low mood might be missing the forest for the trees Finally.
15.
by 32163704 4y ago
Copyright should be limited to 20 years full stop. Nobody deserves to keep making money off of something for longer than two decades.
16.
by 32163704 4y ago
I presume so. Does the EU ruling require companies to offer warranties for damage caused by users installing malicious software?