/2. For instance, conservatives intuit and discover a right for the executive to break the law and flaunt the very Constitution they rely upon with impunity.
And liberals intuit and discover the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
I can hardly wait to get to Con Law. It'll just be a drunken professor ripping up slip opinions. "No rules! No law! Up is down! Make up any decision you want!"
When I took it, 20+ years ago, I remember the professor discussing different theoretical frameworks about how the Court works. He tossed out the idea that the judges just figure out what they wanted and then worked backwards. Then he laughed it off.
Well, here we are!
We make the rules why the fuck are we making rules that just screw people.
Then I think back that there's always been people that want rules to screw over other people and throughout history we have collectively decided those lawmakers are the bad guys.
Assuming the legal community in majority finds this SCOTUS decision outrageous — can they collectively thumb their noses at it, at least give it the narrowest plausible interpretation? (Of course Trump would then appeal every decision all the way up…) Or are they really obliged to rule based on it?
So interesting that after carping for decades that liberals legislated from the bench to find a right to privacy, the conservatives have legislated from the bench to discover an absolute monarch.
So does this immunity for acts the President takes in office extend to people who execute his orders? So if, say, ordered the military to shoot a bunch of protesters, are they protected because it was the Pres who told them to do it?
Isn't the only direct* bodily autonomy case a PA state level case? (Direct being trying to get someone's body parts, not implicit control via what you can and can't do with your own body)
The 9th amendment didn’t do anything. People, interpreting the 9th amendment, did stuff about it. And if you want to know more about how that particular rubber currently hits that specific road, Ken is absolutely your guy, so yeah, stick around and get a load of him, it’s useful stuff.
Americans argue over semantics in the constitution like the whole thing doesn't posit that only land-owning White Men are people so it's all problematic.
