SCENE: Mitch BERG has just ordered at a food truck, and is waiting for his order to come up. Avery LIBRELLE steps around the corner. BERG visibly ponders abandoning his food and slipping away – but LIBRELLE sees him first.
LIBRELLE: Merg!
BERG: Oh, godododoooood golly, Avery, it’s great to see…
LIBRELLE: Shut up. The Supreme Court just took us down the road to authoritarianism.
BERG: Let me guess. The Dobbs case…
LIBRELLE: …was a blow for tyranny.
BERG: Quick question for you, Avery. Six unelected justices, fifty years ago, making up law out of whole cloth…
LIBRELLE: Democracy!
BERG: Thousands of legislators, and 435 Congresspeople, directly representing millions of voters?
LIBRELLE: (Hisses) Tyranny!
BERG: You do realize these series of satirical sketches barely qualifies as parody, anymore, right?
(And SCENE)
democracy
dĭ-mŏk′rə-sē
noun
1. A three year old kicking and screaming in the candy aisle of Walmart until mom buys a Skittles Family Pack.
2. A Democrat kicking and screaming…
In tossing out Roe v Wade and established precedence, and the arguments used in tossing out, the SCOTUS made it clear that its decisions are made on the basis of personal preferences and not on the basis of legal arguments and sound jurisprudence.
I have read the opinion twice and it boils down to the above. The opinion is just personal thoughts on how a passage should be interpreted and because Alito’s interpretation is X then because the previous interpretation was Y any precedence flies out the window (Alito said that this affects only Roe V Wade but Thomas was more honest, it affects everything).
I find your comment 1hard to credit, E.
Please tell us what “legal arguments” means, and what “sound jurisprudence” means, and then quote the sentences from Alito’s opinion which led you to conclude he was acting on personal preference rather than legal arguments and sound jurisdprudence.
I suspect we’ll learn that “legal arguments” to you means “arguments I find persuasive” and “sound jurisprudence” to you means “a result I like” which are merely different ways of saying that E’s “personal preference” should control, exactly the fault you attribute to Alito.
But by all means, persuade me of the contrary.
Just in case you were thinking that Emery had anything worthwhile to say on this, or really any topic:
Emery on July 13, 2022 at 9:43 am said:
(Alito said that this affects only Roe V Wade but Thomas was more honest, it affects everything).
But yesterday Emery wrote:
Emery on July 12, 2022 at 10:33 am said:
Just to clarify: Alito made it clear in his reasoning in the draft opinion why and how they will go after other unenumerated rights.
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=82783#comment-235679
What a wacky guy!
Well, UMMP, he did say he read it twice. No surprise that he had a different response each time. Or he could just be speaking out of both sides of his butt; probably goes through a lot of Chapstick.
My publisher offers me the option of ordinary or Large Print edition, to make it easier for some readers to understand the story.
The Supreme Court might adopt a similar idea for readers like E and the Liberal Press to understand the story: Regular, or Small Words edition.
Left wing ass kisser Emery decries personal preference in law?! Apparently, he’s missed all of his heroes advocating for packing the SCOTUS with radical justices that will make laws, based on their personal preference. Jebus Cripes! How stupid are you, Emery?!
UMMP, what do you think the chance is that rAT Emery read one word of the decision? On a scale of 0 to 7 (I’m an octal kind of guy).
JD has the right tack. Treat rAT like a grade 8 teacher handles the low IQ class clown that turns in a math test and scores 90+. Ask him to show his work.
I don’t know if Emery read the concurring and dissenting opinions. However, he gives little evidence of having done so. He seems to be basing his Dobbs reasoning based on poorly written commentary by leftists.
While Thomas suggested that Obergefell & other decisions based on due process may be in danger, he suggests that they might better be based on the 14th’s “privileges and immunities” clause.