Community >> View Thread

Author
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021


SCOTUS unanimously scuttled stare decisis in favor of originalism (applied to federal legislation) to yield a ruling favorable to consumers and employees and unfavorable to giant corporations:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/scotus-just-handed-workers-who-sue-their-employers-a-surprising-unanimous-win/ar-AAXFsyA?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ee4f9de024f74b9ebaef5782c73f1978


Many SCOTUS-watchers are quite surprised. I'm not. The conservative majority seems poised to scuttle stare decisis in favor of originalism (applied to the Constitution) to yield a ruling favorable to embryos, the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the independence of state legislatures, and decidedly unfavorable to reluctant mothers. Staying consistent now on the principle of originalism will make it easier for the justices to pass the red face test in the near future.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008





It is a rarity that the SCOTUS does anything for consumers that is positive honestly.


    Quote:

    Many SCOTUS-watchers are quite surprised. I'm not. The conservative majority seems poised to scuttle stare decisis in favor of originalism (applied to the Constitution) to yield a ruling favorable to embryos, the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the independence of state legislatures, and decidedly unfavorable to reluctant mothers. Staying consistent now on the principle of originalism will make it easier for the justices to pass the red face test in the near future.


I mean alot of the rulings have not been great. The one that just came out yesterday I think pretty much smacks the Constitution in the face ruling that if a State appointed lawyer does a poor job and then his replacement does a poor job than there is nothing the federal courts can do about it, since they decided no new information can be added at that point. To do otherwise would be an intrusion to the states.

My problem with originalism is whose originalism? It sounds easier than it is in practice and it can mostly be used as a dodge to stop progress.

I do find it a little amusing that rulings and laws are being tossed out fairly regularly by the group that was supposedly against judicial activism. And often in briefs they use talking points that are nearly out of Fox News.

Maybe there is something to be said for the letter of the law and not anything more than that but no court really does that consistently. As you point out, this court in particulars deference to religion alone is not really what was in mind during the founding although that issue is historically very complex.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.64 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software