Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our laws are supposed to be interpreted via precedent. We are not a fly by night French civil system. Our legal traditions are rooted in maintaining centuries of stability within the law, altering those interpretations only in accordance with new laws. If the courts cannot be expected to consistently interpret the law, how can citizens be sure what that law means? To turn over fifty years of precedent on a whim is ce…
I’m curious then if you also oppose Brown and Obergefell?
And you are right.
I absolutely support both same-sex marriage and the casting out of the vile separate-but-equal doctrine.
And I think both would have been better done as legislation.
When the supreme court struck down 50 years of precedent supporting the right of women to use abortion as a tool in reasonably controlling whether they would choose to go through the dangers of pregnancy, they showed precedent alone is not a dependable bulwark for the rights of the citizenry.
I also admit I find it far more reasonable for the courts to expand rights and protections than I do seeing it strip them away.
You might argue this is an expansion of rights for those that would prefer to be unhindered by regulatory oversight while destroying, polluting and mismanaging the wetlands now under their control, and I suppose it is. Though I doubt any good will come of it.