Homehttps://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/UShttps://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/Elena Kagan becomes the last liberal justice to issue a precedent
Elena Kagan becomes the last liberal justice to issue a precedent
Cagan opposed a case in which the owner of the property opposed the government, but liberal justice clearly indicated that she was also looking forward to putting a marker and hinting that a newly consolidated conservative majority could be dismissed in a similar way and other areas, These areas could include access to abortion, positive action and LGBT rights – all issues that go to the High Court.
Kagan's crying coincides with that of Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week when Ginsberg called the retirement of swing vote Anthony Kennedy "the biggest consequence" of the current term and "perhaps for very forthcoming deadlines."
According to her, Kagan also nodded in a sign of disagreement that Stephen Breyer wrote last month when the majority rejected the precedent in a case called the Franchise Tax Board. of California against the Hawk about whether a state can be sued in a court of another state without its consent.
"Today's decision can only get someone to think about which cases will ignore the Court further," Breyer said, verifying the name of the 1
992 opinion, which confirms the decision by Rowe vs. Wade to legalize abortion. Friday's opinion, Cagan picked up Bryer's line.
"Well, it does not take long," she complained. "Now one can wonder again."
"When a theory calls for a precedent to be preceded by a false precedent," Cagan said, "this is a sign that the theory itself may be wrong." The theory of the majority is exactly that. What do the Supreme Court judges say when they talk about overcoming important cases "data-src-mini =" // cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190219120707-01-scotus-0219-small-169.jpg " data-src-xsmall = "// cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190219120707-01-scotus-0219-medium-plus-169.jpg" data-src-small = "http: // cdn. cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190219120707-01-scotus-0219-large-169.jpg "data-src-medium =" // cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190219120707-01-scotus -0219-zoom-169.jpg "data-src-large =" // cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190219120707-01-scotus-0219-super-169.jpg "data-src-full16x9 = "//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190219120707-01-scotus-0219-full-169.jpg" data-src-mini1x1 = "// cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/ 190219120707-01-scotus-0219-small-11.jpg "data-request-load-not-loaded" data-eq-pts = "mini: 0, xsmall: 781 "src =" data: image / gif; base64, R0lGODlhEAAJAJEAAAAAAP /////// wAAACH5BAEAAAI ALAAAAAAQAAkAAAIKlI + py + 0Po5yUFQA7 "/>
The court prides itself on politeness on the bench, to stay away from the irritating struggle that has plagued the other two branches of the government. But the anger of judges often appears in their work product.
Once again, the bigger problem here is not the specific constitutional issue the judges are fighting in this case, and the wider transformation that seems to be underway as to when the Court will be and will not be bound by his previous precedent, "said Steve Vladek, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School." The fact that this debate is being played over and over again in cases that are less public , suggests that all judges expect an even bigger case when the dispute is before and a center that we can see next Monday
Next week, the Supreme Court will end its mandate, and from a dozen remaining opinions, on two important issues, judges are called upon to abolish the precedent, that politicians go too far to attract areas for partisan profits, and the other concerns the scope of the regulatory power. "
What the Roberts and Thomas
said the government would argue that his actions are unconstitutional "acceptance". The fifth amendment states that "private property (not to be) used for public use without simple compensation."
The applicant, Rose Mary Kick, had a cemetery on her property, and a new law from Pennsylvania required her to make it open to the public. Under the existing precedent of the Supreme Court, it can not sue to challenge the claim until the State is given the opportunity to pay it a fair compensation. Friday's ruling ruled that Kick could sue in a federal court as soon as it happened.
The other four conservative judges joined the opinion. Thomas shows the least respect for a legal doctrine, called stare decisis, which means "to stay behind what has been decided." in the case of the Hyatt that Breyer had been doing last month
"Stare decided not to stick to this wrong precedent," Thomas writes.
RELATED: Clarence Thomas asks for sources of rumors about retirement
During a conference in 2013 organized by the federal society, Judge Diane S. Sykes asked Thomas: "Old decision does not have much power for you? "
"It is not enough to make me not go to the Constitution," Thomas said.
Earlier, he issued a stunning opinion suggesting that it is time for the Court to reconsider the original precedent, which, according to some, is a crown of the Supreme Court's case law. Thomas directed his attention to the New York Times against Sullivan, a 1964 opinion, according to which civil servants have a greater burden to prove defamation.
The opinion of 1986, called Batson v. Kentucky, where the court ruled that the state can not discriminate against a race when exercising irresponsible disputes against future jurors in a criminal trial.
Writing alone, Thomas said, "Our understanding of Batson – that race matters in the courtroom – and thus returns the parties to the case one of the most important tools to combat prejudice in their affairs," he said.