https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...politano-trump
Printable View
But the Constitution to America is important isnt it? i haven't seen much from the Modern current Liberals talking about the American Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Collins
He didnt really say much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Collins
Stare decisis is a real issue. She supports it. Its what she used to justify overturning Judge Michael McHaney's injunction against Pritzker's lockdown decree.
https://lawliberty.org/forum/stare-d...nalist-judges/
Quote:
Stare decisis is the doctrine that a court should rule the way a previous court ruled even when the judges of the second court disagree with the earlier ruling. This doctrine poses an obvious problem for an originalist judge or justice. If a previous judicial decision reached an outcome contrary to what the original meaning of the Constitution requires, the originalist judge or justice is bound to rule contrary to that original meaning. In this way, the doctrine of stare decisis puts the rule provided by previous judges above the rule provided by the text of the Constitution.
Here we have a potential SCOTUS justice who just upheld a lockdown decree and justified it by pointing to a SCOTUS case which upheld mandatory vaccinations...
You cant make this shit up.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ockdown-decree
Her position is that you have to justify overturning precedent not that you can't: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2291141Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown
As a lower court judge she may not have wanted to be overturned but on SCOTUS she will feel free to change precedent.
Only if the previous ruling is in line with the Constitution. Otherwise stare decisis is crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown
So, my understanding is that judges are expected to rule in a similar way regardless of its constitutionality, which is why its an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Collins
This is a pretty good read:
https://lawliberty.org/forum/stare-d...nalist-judges/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
I dont think she opposes the lockdowns.
Even from an ideological standpoint, she could have dissented since the other two judges were in agreement. Her dissent would not have affected the ruling.
Exactly. That's what they are taught in law school as mandated by the ABA.Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown