Thursday , October 6 2022
Home / The Angry Bear / The Rule of Law might have been Overturned Today

The Rule of Law might have been Overturned Today

Summary:
Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned. The rule of law might have been; The Washington Post, Erwin Chemerinsky Dean at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky; “The majority was mute on the right to privacy, abandoned its constitutional role and held, indirectly but unmistakably, that the Constitution is a mere inconvenience that states are at liberty to violate if they can come up with cunning statutory language. Even though Roe is still the law, the women in Texas no longer have the right that it protects. Such has no resemblance to the rule of law.” SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts: Rather than waiting to adjudicate the Texas law on its merits, members of the Whole Woman’s Health majority tossed out; “very

Topics:
run75441 considers the following as important: , , , ,

This could be interesting, too:

run75441 writes August JOLTS report: the game of reverse musical chairs in the jobs market is ending

Angry Bear writes Selling fairytales to the credulous

NewDealdemocrat writes September manufacturing new orders and August construction spending both turn down

run75441 writes What is in My In-Box

Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned. The rule of law might have been; The Washington Post, Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky; “The majority was mute on the right to privacy, abandoned its constitutional role and held, indirectly but unmistakably, that the Constitution is a mere inconvenience that states are at liberty to violate if they can come up with cunning statutory language.

Even though Roe is still the law, the women in Texas no longer have the right that it protects. Such has no resemblance to the rule of law.”

SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts: Rather than waiting to adjudicate the Texas law on its merits, members of the Whole Woman’s Health majority tossed out; “very old and very important legal wine: The ability to ask the Judiciary to protect an individual from the invasion of a constitutional right.”

Hiding behind an unsigned opinion and burying their heads in the sand as Justice Sotomayer termed it, the five members of the majority, over the “signed” dissents of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three other justices, declined to carry out their central functions of protecting constitutional rights and uphold the rule of law.

About run75441

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *