The "horrible decisions that may be overturned now" list

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a silly list. Anyways, if another wingnut gets on the court, they'll overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law, and restore Texas' anti-gay sex law, in addition to the obvious with Roe v. Wade.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

you're getting way ahead of yourself.  and probably overlooking anthony kennedy's swing position.

Kennedy voted against the majority in all of those cases. O'Connor was the fifth vote in each of them.

And I didn't say how quickly they would be overturned. But if Roberts and Alito join Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, it's only a matter of time.

I understand.  then yeah, I think you're right.  How about Brown v Board?

Well, it's complete speculation, but it is possible that Brown v. Board or Griswald v. Connecticut could be at risk with another wingnut. The far right hates Warren.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not kidding.  Look, Bandit says we're not law experts.  fair enough.  surely I'm not.  But I can imagine some future state lege wants to separate retards out of the general population.  fair enough.  Yes, it seems immoral and a bit bigoted.  but say it happens, now, some clever moralist attorney calls on Brown v Board, and convinces the 9th circuit court of appeals that that retards deserve to go to the same schools as all of us regula' folks.  hmm.  separate facilities are inherently unequal.  but then the clever libertarian attorney says, what?  that's bs.  Now, I'm not saying it's good for society, or bad for society, to separate some group out like that.  but it may happen.  Then it comes down to kennedy, right?  And Brown is either overturned because Kennedy thinks you can't make states keep retards with the others because it's so damned expensive, or it's upheld because Kennedy realizes that if the argument is used to separate retards, then it may set a bad precedent and may one day be used to separate queers, kikes, coons, and catholics.  and those nasty chinks too.  you know how they're always blowing the bell curve with their good marks.  bastards.

am I all confused here?  possibly.  I don't claim to be a lawyer.  just throwin' it  out there for discussion.

While Kennedy is definitely right of center, I think he'd uphold Brown v. Board of Ed. I'm not so sure about the 4 wingnuts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, two points, both of which should be obvious, but apparently aren't to some people.

First, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all support Brown, as each has made very clear.

Second, Brown v. Board of Education dealt only with racial segregation. In cases of sex separation, the Court would apply intermediate scrutiny, and in the case angus brings up, a mere rational basis would be required.

Roberts made it very clear during his confirmation that he was in favor of the Oregon assisted suicide law. Enough said.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Roberts made it very clear during his confirmation that he was in favor of the Oregon assisted suicide law.

He did no such thing.

He went on and on about "judicial restraint", and he told Senator Wyden that he supported the law.

So where in the constitution does it say that a state can not have a law allowing physician assisted suicide?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dems would dominate in a post- roe world.

Why? People would quickly realize that overturning Roe does not mean making abortion illegal throughout America. They would find out that abortion merely becomes a state issue again. There would, therefore, be no backlash against Republicans.

Who says they won't ban it like they tried to do to physician assisted sucide?