'Shaken' law professors revolt as hyper-partisan SCOTUS rulings 'upend constitutional principles'

[turbinetree]

BY Alex Henderson, AlterNet
Published October 03, 2022

?id=29752905&width=1200&height=709

For generations, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded or upheld civil liberties, from freedom of the press in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) to access to contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) to gay rights in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967). But when the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling was handed down on June 24 and Roe v. Wade was overturned after 49 years, the High Court’s radical-right majority demonstrated that it had no problem rejecting precedent and rolling back civil liberties.

Moreover, Justice Clarence Thomas, in Dobbs, recommended that the High Court also “reconsider” Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Civil libertarians fear that with socially conservative justices having attacked abortion rights, everything from gay rights to contraception is also in danger.

Over the years, there has been much discussion in law schools of the role the Court has played in expanding rights, but now that the Court is rolling rights back, how are law schools responding? Journalist Mark Joseph Stern tackles that subject in an article published by Slate on October 2.

https://www.rawstory.com/shaken-law-professors-revolt-as-hyper-partisan-scotus-rulings-upend-constitutional-principles/


Federalist Society POS.....should never be allowed to sit on a bench

[quaint]

1. The Supreme Court Is Blowing Up Law School, Too

The problem, it’s worth emphasizing, is not that the Supreme Court is issuing decisions with which left-leaning professors disagree. It’s that the court seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards, rejecting precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning. Plenty of progressive professors have long viewed the court with skepticism, and many professors, right- and left-leaning, have criticized the reasoning behind certain opinions for decades. But it’s only in recent years—with the manipulation of the justice selection process combined with clear, results-oriented cynicism in decisions—that the problem has seemed so acute that they feel it affects their ability to teach constitutional law.

“It’s hard to think about your own profession—the things you were taught, the things you believed in—abruptly coming to an end in rapid succession,” said Tiffany Jeffers, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “It’s hard to ask a law professor to dismantle all the training they had. It’s a difficult, emotional, psychological transformation process. It’s not easy to upend your life’s work and not trust the Supreme Court.”

Slate

[live love laugh]

2. Republicans: We can do whatever we effin' want.

[Johnny2X2X]

3. There are 5 extremists on the court

People whose views are far far outside of 80% of America. They have no respect for the law, these 5 are rogues that want to remake the country for political reasons. And it's going to get much much worse.

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Expand the Supreme Court ... or do away w/ it. I don't think any of us ever wanted someone

to single-handedly wipe away what our legislators voted in (and we in turn voted for them).

Do away w/ the Supreme Court and have instead, a far more robust body of judges (already there in place, at the bench), such as perhaps 1 or 2 per state, and use this entire body to judge pro or con, those laws coming up for review. Don't let this small body (six partisan hacks out of of nine) rule/judge us, what is what they are effectively doing now.