![]() ![]() Hodges, the Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have the right to get married. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Scalia said, in 2013 in a speech at the University of California Washington Center, the following: This weakened the Voting Rights Act and is considered by many an attack on the civil liberties of black voters. Holder, the Supreme Court decided to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.” Burwell, the Supreme Court decided that subsidies under Obamacare could be used through the federal exchange program. God be reasonable? He’s supposed to have a full beard.” I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. “Well, religious beliefs aren’t reasonable. During the case’s oral argument, Scalia said: Justice Scalia voted with the opinion of the court. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court decided that private businesses can be exempted from certain laws on religious grounds. Modern corporations do not have such privileges, and would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders-excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society.” Most of the Founders’ resentment towards corporations was directed at the state-granted monopoly privileges that individually chartered corporations enjoyed. “Even if we thought it proper to apply the dissent’s approach of excluding from First Amendment coverage what the Founders disliked, and even if we agreed that the Founders disliked founding-era corporations modern corporations might not qualify for exclusion. Scalia voted in concurrence with the majority, and wrote: This created the situation we are in now, where corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to SuperPACS, which are used to influence political elections. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.”Ģ. “The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether “ounting every legally cast vote ca constitute irreparable harm.” One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, “legally cast vote.” The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Scalia voted in concurrence with majority, and wrote: Bush became the president, with everything that came after. This decision is considered by many to be the reason George W. Gore, the Supreme Court decided to stop recounting ballots in Florida. The ones that were in dissent were oftentimes vicious. Sometimes his opinions were in the majority. Here is a look back on ten of the worst Supreme Court Decisions of Scalia’s career. Luckily, President Obama will now have the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, which will tip the scales in favor of a liberal court. Scalia’s insane originalist philosophy has had a major impact on modern conservatism. In his decades-long appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, he has worked diligently against the forces of social justice. I close with some concluding thoughts on the surprising relationship between Erie’s flaws and those of the other suspects.Justice Antonin Scalia had an impressive career. The heart of the essay is Part II, examining in detail how Erie satisfies each of the three criteria. I also explain briefly why each of the usual suspects fails to meet one or more of those criteria. I begin, in Part I, by setting out the three criteria that I believe must be satisfied for a decision to qualify as the worst of all time. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the usual suspects. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. ![]() First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. ![]() This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |