The Morning Snooze In San Francisco
Bill Quick

The FauxFox channel is reporting that SCOTUS is going to revisit the whole question of affirmative action, and “because analysts say that the court has become more conservative, it may limit or even strike down affirmative action itself.”

Think about the premise underlying this notion. First, that the SCOTUS is entirely moved by political beliefs, rather than doing its job of upholding the Constitution. Second, that the Constitution itself is meaningless, its plain language irrelevant, and SCOTUS decisions are therefore only political preferences made by individual justices.

In other words, the Constitution itself no longer exists, except as a majority preference of an extremely tiny group of judges. And, frankly, that is exactly how leftists view our framing document.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

The Morning Snooze In San Francisco — 4 Comments

  1. The conceit of SCOTUS is that it will rule only on the particulars of the case before it. That allows the court to revisit the same law and reverse on other particulars of another case later, sometimes much later, with different judges. No court upends a previous court’s ruling, it just asserts a view from a different angle to claim consistency. What’s the problem with a sitting court ruling that a previous court decision was wrong?

    • If judges are not seen as infallible, unbiased, and non-partisan then — Oh My God! — judges may come to be seen as fallible. That cannot be tolerated!

      Seriously, that came up in one of my classes in law school. The professor, who was less of a mushy-minded libtard than most of his colleagues, candidly asserted that it was naked self-interest by the judges. You don’t say that a panel of judges reached a clearly wrong decision because this would weaken the respect of the judicial system.