What?? No One's Talking about the Supreme Court?
Or is the news of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement so before lunch? There are things you can do (even if you know they won't work). If you stop fighting them, you might as well join them, so quit being a side-liner and stand up for just a few things that are about to go down the tubes, including:
right to an abortion
right to birth control
right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (goodbye warrant requirement)
right to freedom of religion
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
right of communities to create Greenbelt and smart growth without paying off landowners
class action law suits
environmental regulations
right to buy GMO-free food
Did I miss anything??
right to an abortion
right to birth control
right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (goodbye warrant requirement)
right to freedom of religion
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
right of communities to create Greenbelt and smart growth without paying off landowners
class action law suits
environmental regulations
right to buy GMO-free food
Did I miss anything??
posted by Anonymous at 2:16 PM
4 Comments:
Wow, a lot of gloom and doom here...
I'm pretty sure that the new Supreme Court isn't going to eliminate the warrant requirement. I mean, that's just plain ridiculous. Will they continue to create new exceptions to the warrant requirement? Probably. But "eliminating" the requirement? No way.
And I'm also pretty sure that the new Supreme Court isn't going to eliminate "freedom of religion." That would be pretty tough to do. In fact, isn't it more likely that there will be more religion in our schools and government?
And I'm also sure that the new Supreme Court isn't going to eliminate a woman's "right" to birth control. It's possible that future cases will further limit government subsidies of birth control, but there certainly won't be a case that "prevents" women from buying birth control.
A new Supreme Court isn't going to "eliminate" class action lawsuits. Cap recovery for victims? Reduce attorneys fees? It's already been done by Congress.
Roe v. Wade? I think it's pretty safe too. The Court derives most, if not all of its power, from the public. Very few cases are ever decided that fly in the face of the majority opinion. The only time the Court has ever been truly counter-majoritarian has been in flag burning, school prayer, and the criminal procedure cases (Miranda, etc.) from the 1960s. Brown v. Board wasn't an example of the Court bucking popular opinion - opinion polls at the time showed that a significant majority favored equal rights and the end of segregation. All of this is to say that the Supreme Court, no matter who is on it, will mirror the popular opinion of society. And for now, popular opinion supports abortion (overall, 55% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, 42% say illegal according to ABC News 2004).
1) Officers may search your car if there is reasonable suspicion; granted, reasonable suspicion is fairly easy to acquire, but it's not like we're talking about completely random searches here. And I have no problem with backyard flyovers (I think the line was properly drawn at heat-detection and other high-tech devices, rather than binoculars). While we're at it, I have no problem with random searches of school lockers either - you don't "own" that property, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy there - so I have no hang-ups with applying the doctrine to those cases.
2. So we agree that there will be more religion on government property than before. Maybe the voucher market will cause Moslems and atheists to start their own government subsidized schools? OK, I'll concede your point.
3. Yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court has created a privacy interest in birth control. And while a Court-created constitutional right may not be given as much credibility as, say, a real, live, actual Bill of Rights enumerated "freedom of speech" type of constitutional right, it still holds tremendous weight for future Courts. Is a future Court really likely to eliminate a constitutional right, even one that they concededly created? Don't you honestly think that stare decisis principles are likely to carry the day when push comes to shove? They've created the rights and aren't about to go back on it now. That's part of applying the doctrine - even though you're on the losing side and you may disagree with the decision, you have to apply the law.
The only times I can think of justices continuing their original dissents in lieu of applying the doctrine were in a few of the Civil Rights Sec. 1981 cases (where Rehnquist and White dissented, for instance, in McDonald v. Santa Fe because of their original theory that 1981 didn't apply to private actors and therefore private actors should not have standing). And I know Thomas has in a few of these cases too, but I can't remember which ones.
Have there ever been times where the Court has reversed itself? Yes, of course. On a constitutional right like abortion or birth control? They don't want that cloud over their heads. As I mentioned in the original post, the institution is not a counter-majoritarian one.
you guys are such lawyers. Let's just all agree this is a bad thing, send our pointless emails to Congress, and then go cry in our beer someplace dark.
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! » »
Post a Comment
<< Home