| NightlyPoe said: Now, such low-hanging fruit is generally gone. Any "progress" liberals want to make in the courts is on a scaffold of increasingly shaking reasoning and nonsense like empathy standards. Go back and watch the presidential debates where Clinton and Obama address the Supreme Court nominees they would send up. Fidelity to the law as it is written is rarely mentioned if at all. It's a place to win. |
The problem is that the conservative justices make equally idiotic decisions based on shaky reasoning. I mean, I agree that the abortion ruling is a total strech, and I'm generally pro-abortion. But take a look at these moronic rights destroying rulings...
Texas Racial Gerrymandering
I shouldn't even have to explain this one.
Yellow Dog Contracts
Back in the early 1900's, when you got a job your employer made you sign a contract to give up all your legal rights. It basically lowered you to the level of a yellow dog. In the 30's laws were passed to make these contracts illegal. Modern law offers something called arbitration, where you and another party agree to have a dispute settled, not by a judge, but by a third party. Many modern employers force you to sign an arbitration clause. Once both sides have signed an arbitration clause a dispute cannot legally enter court. This way long, unneeded court battles won't ensue, because arbitration is infinitely faster. It's better for both parties. But now, many employers include a clause in their arbitration contracts that say something like "You must pay a fee of $10,000 for any arbitration." So if your employer decides to stiff you on $5,000 of overtime pay, you legally can't get the money back without first paying $10,000 for arbitration. And so arbitration contracts have legally become the same as yellow dog contracts. This of course is a clear violation of laws written in the 30's, and illegal. But the current supreme court has ruled otherwise.
Discrimination based on country of origin.
During WW2, we threw all of our Japanese citizens into camps, under B.S. national security reasoning. This of course was illegal, and was ruled illegal decades later. The Supreme court just ruled that Trump's travel ban is legal. Nevermind that the reasoning for Trump's travel ban of majority Muslim countries is using the same B.S. national security logic.
If you don't believe me, read the dissenting opinions, and majority opinions of these rulings. Any idiot can see that the current Supreme Court is a Kangaroo court, just as much as the court that ruled in favor of abortion based on shaky "Freedom of Search and Siezure" grounds. Just as much as any court that would have ignored people's Right to Bear Arms, based on shaky reasoning.
Prediction: The Supreme court will rule that there's no such thing as separation between court and state in the next ten years. Even though it is clearly written in the constitution that there is, and any moron can see it.
