At least some in the court’s newly constituted majority seem to have a different conception of the judicial role — one which allows them simply to refuse to apply past decisions they do not like. | Al Drago/Getty ImagesJeffrey L. Fisher is a law professor at Stanford Law School; co-director of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic; and special counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP.and other foundational decisions makes clear that key precedents are no longer safe.
, the court considered whether recipients of federal funds that discriminate against individuals because of their race, sex or disability must pay damages for any resulting emotional distress. The framework the court established 20 years ago strongly suggested the answer was yes. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, however, supplied the pivotal votes against the plaintiff on the ground that that framework itself was faulty and thus should never be extended.
We need not look back very far to understand why that is so. During oral argument five years ago in another case involving whether federal officers could be held liable for violating the Fourth Amendment — this time for shooting an innocent child just across the U.S.-Mexico border — Justice Stephen Breyer explained to the plaintiff’s lawyer that the court could not just pronounce which side wins.
Or so we thought. At least some in the court’s newly constituted majority seem to have a different conception of the judicial role — one which allows them simply to refuse to apply past decisions they do not like.was actually doubly disrespectful of. Those defending the right to abortion argued that the court’s prior decisions guaranteeing same-sex couples the right to engage in intimate relations and to marry supported an individual right to obtain an abortion.
The Supreme Court is an unelected, unaccountable and fundamentally un-democratic institution that has always been partisan.
Vote out every Republican in November!
Safe? Go back to journalists school.
Politico is German owned.
It makes me sad to agree with you. THIS Supreme Court is no so supreme. If the question came before them “is tRump president “ I don’t know they would follow the constitution or tRump!
Must become LAW. Do your jobs: SenateDems & HouseDemocrats WhiteHouse & POTUS & VP And Expand Our SupremeCourt Now.
The Supreme Court has been nullifying precedent for a long time, remember Dredd Scott? Plessy?
The Supreme Court is now just another Political Party.
Dear communist Karens: The Constitution is the baseline that the USSupremeCourt use to make its rulings. If you want to change our Constitutional order all you need is to amend it. That demonstrates that your immediate gratification is not always “immediate”.
All based on an old religious tenet that humanity deserves to suffer and pay for sins, and if given a helping hand, humanity becomes lazy and stupid. Thanks for nothing, GOP. You don’t speak for GOD.
SCOTUS turned women’s votes to a single issue vote: The right to make decisions about your own body, the most fundamental right one has. The other stuff isn’t as urgent as this. AbortionIsHealthcare
that wasn't a decision Politico, it was/is a Jesuscotus illegal activity to feed their limited intellectual egos GQP scatter brained delusions of god hood. Conservatives couldn't be more wrong support such perversion. Sad part of that is that they know it, but for the power trip,
No...it makes it very clear that Liberals must stop bringing a butter knife to its gun fights!
Yes they rule off constitution not precedent