RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=5463
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
0.162 Powered by Wordpress
Here’s a real long-shot: The Constitution guaranteeds each state a Republican form of government. If an unelected court usurps the legislature and makes rules no based on the constitution, it’s no longer a Republic.
I’m not saying this line would have a snowball’s chance in Yuma…
Comment by Gary and the Samoyeds — Monday, November 29, 2024 @ 2:19 pm
There really isn’t anything about judicial policy-making the vitiates the idea of republican government, per se.
Further, by staying out of it, the Supremes are theoretically respecting the reserved powers of the states.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, November 29, 2024 @ 3:12 pm
Nov. 29, 2024
Opinion.Telegraph - The policeman found my penknife. ‘You’re going down, mate,’ he said The take unlawfuyl possession of dangerous weapons seriously in the UK. Think this is a bit luducrous, remember ya ain’t allowed to take your nail clippers aboa…
Trackback by Read My Lips — Monday, November 29, 2024 @ 5:09 pm
Until and unless someone uses the Full Faith and Credit clause to apply the decision outside Mass, I don’t see that there is a Constitutional issue for them to address. The mere chance that someone might use that argument at a later time does not create an actual “case or controversy” before them.
Plus, they usually duck any issue that they do not absolutely have to tackle (unless there’sa burr under their collective saddle).
In other words, pretty much what you said. Only longer.
Comment by Steven L. — Monday, November 29, 2024 @ 7:18 pm