SCOTUS: In dissent, Thomas calls for Batson to be overruled! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 08:13:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  SCOTUS: In dissent, Thomas calls for Batson to be overruled! (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SCOTUS: In dissent, Thomas calls for Batson to be overruled!  (Read 1023 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,733
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« on: June 22, 2019, 11:58:47 PM »

If flowers is overruled and wrote was overruled, does that mean defense attorneys will start preempting people in abortion trials for being even Fundagelical, Mormon, Or Catholic? Basically, you could turn the entire system into catch and release based on being able to reliably game the voir dire process.
Yes. If if the Establishment Clause is gutted. Thomas thinks the Establishment Clause (and probably the Free Exercise Clause) doesn’t apply to the states.

Thomas has repeatedly supported the application of Free Exercise to states and localities (ex. Hialeah, Locke v. Davey, Masterpiece Cakeshop)
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,733
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2019, 01:27:12 PM »

If flowers is overruled and wrote was overruled, does that mean defense attorneys will start preempting people in abortion trials for being even Fundagelical, Mormon, Or Catholic? Basically, you could turn the entire system into catch and release based on being able to reliably game the voir dire process.
Yes. If if the Establishment Clause is gutted. Thomas thinks the Establishment Clause (and probably the Free Exercise Clause) doesn’t apply to the states.

Thomas has repeatedly supported the application of Free Exercise to states and localities (ex. Hialeah, Locke v. Davey, Masterpiece Cakeshop)
Thomas’ Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion mentions free exercise, but his opinion is more about suggesting the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

Thomas is arguing it's unconstitutional to use nondiscrimination law to restrict freedom of speech.  That doesn't mean all nondiscrimination law is unconstitutional.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,733
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2019, 02:23:50 PM »


You mean he quoted Roberts dissenting opinion in that case when making a general point about the role of the Court.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.