Just a quick reminder that I’ll be Zoom Chatting today at 12:30 with Joshua Zeitz about his recent piece in Politico taking the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to task for its poor grasp of both history and the law. We’ll be talking Supreme Court, the July 6th hearings, and whether the wheels of the American experiment in democratic governance have completely come off.
It should make for a great discussion, so please join us — and if you have any questions or issues you want us to discuss, leave them in the comments below! See ya in a few hours, and the Zoom link is here.
Friday Musical Interlude
New Wilco!
So the SCOTUS has essentially sanctioned a state religion by both the Roe v Wade rejection and the school prayer decision, which is illegal since it violates the religious freedom point of the first amendment. Does that violate the entire first amendment?
I thought Tuesday's show was gong to be proof of Russian blackmail of Trump and the GOP. IT is still an open question in my mind, considering Trump's mentors and secret meetings in plain sight with Trump while President and many years prior.
A question for Joshua...
In your piece, in reference to the recent abortion decision by the Supreme Court, it says the following:
“the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868,” when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified
You go on to argue that their choice of 1868 rather than 1787 is inconsistent with how originalism should work, i.e., be based on the traditions at the time of the Constitution.
But didn't they choose 1868 because the Roe v Wade decision was based on the due process clause introduced by the Fourteenth Amendment? I've read that it was based on the legal theory of "substantive due process."
Not to rant, but it's stunning that in Thomas' concurring opinion on the Dobbs case, he goes out of his way to cite several other decisions that were also apparently decided based on the substantive due process argument. Yet he leaves out one of the more significant ones in Loving v Virginia.
I look forward to your conversation.
P.S. I am not a lawyer, but I find the law very interesting