The Roberts court has shown that they don’t care about stare decisis, precedents, or facts (ex. the photographer who had no legitimate standing on account of not actually receiving requests from a same-sex couple and having fabricated one instead). I wouldn’t hold my breath on that case not being overturned.
But counterpoint: There was a court case in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) that said racial segregation was legal. This is the same court 2 years later also upholding birthright citizenship.
I don’t think the current court has a mindset that’s even older than a 1896 supreme court mindset.
That said, republicans could always pack more judges with an even older pre- civil war mindset, that is much worse than the 1896 court. Only time will tell.
Alito cited a 17th century jurist in his justification for overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s 1600s, a century before the US was founded and not relevant to extant law.
The Roberts court has shown that they don’t care about stare decisis, precedents, or facts (ex. the photographer who had no legitimate standing on account of not actually receiving requests from a same-sex couple and having fabricated one instead). I wouldn’t hold my breath on that case not being overturned.
True, I’m just being optimistic.
But counterpoint: There was a court case in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) that said racial segregation was legal. This is the same court 2 years later also upholding birthright citizenship.
I don’t think the current court has a mindset that’s even older than a 1896 supreme court mindset.
That said, republicans could always pack more judges with an even older pre- civil war mindset, that is much worse than the 1896 court. Only time will tell.
Alito cited a 17th century jurist in his justification for overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s 1600s, a century before the US was founded and not relevant to extant law.
Yikes.
Welp, back to slavery 🤷♂️