Andrea Mitchell은 SCOTUS 누출이 'Brown v. 교육위원회'도 무너질 수 있다

“얼마나 전례가 없는지, 가장 먼저, 누출이다?” 미첼 프롬프트. “그리고 그들이 전례를 깨는 관점에서 내려온 방식, 묵살 stare decisis and deciding to completely overrule 로브이. 걸어 건너기 후 49 연령.”

Holder acknowledged that the leak itself wasunprecedented.He commented that the fact that Americans havenever actually seen a draft opinion” 이다 “진지한” 과 “something that needs to be addressed.

Though according to the former attorney general, the content of the leak was the most important aspect of the controversy.

But what we really need to focus on is what’s contained in that leaked opinion,” 그는 말했다.

CORI BUSH ASKS JOY REID WHY THERE ISN’T ‘SPERM REGULATION LEGISLATIONTO CONTROL MEN’S BODIES

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP 사진 / J. 스콧 애플 화이트, 파일)

그는 계속했다, 속담, “Looks like they’re going to overturn 로브이. 걸어 건너기, inconsistent with the notion that you would adhere to precedent that people have relied on over the last 50 연령. It’s an attack on the right to privacy.

Holder then worried aloud about other rulings being at risk because of this tossing of precedent.

“그래서, the question has to be asked, is it only abortion that is going to be at risk or is same-sex marriage going to be at risk?” 그는 물었다. “The regulation of contraception, is that going to be at risk? Even interracial marriage. All of these are based on the right to privacy.

He added that the leaked draft opinionreally goes at that – that right to privacy.

Mitchell later asked him whether rulings made during the civil rights era could be overturned.

이전 미국. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. speaks during the National Action Network Convention in New York, 수요일, 4 월 3, 2019.

이전 미국. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. speaks during the National Action Network Convention in New York, 수요일, 4 월 3, 2019. (AP)

And if they care so little about precedent and overruling precedent, what about Brown v. 교육위원회? What about other major civil rights rulings of the 50s and 60s?, 그녀가 물었다.

PROTESTS AT JUSTICES’ HOMES ‘NOTHING’ PARED TO ‘FORCING US TO BEAR CHILDREN WE DON’T WANT’: LA TIMES COLUMN

Holder softly hinted that that thought might be too paranoid but gave it some earnest consideration and rationalized that there could be some concern for overturning the 1954 Supreme Court decision.

That’s a question that you might have said, '잘, you’re going too far Andrea’ and yet you think about those Trump judges who when they were questioned about is Brown v. The Board of Education a super-precedent or something you would not re-examine, they waffled on that,” Holder claimed.

That always kind of struck me,” Holder added. “How could you waffle on Brown v the Board of Education? And yet they did.

Pro-abortion rights activist Alicia Hurt holds a placard during a protest outside the Supreme Court building, ahead of arguments in the Mississippi abortion rights case Dobbs v. 잭슨 여성의 건강, 워싱턴, 12 월. 1, 2021. REUTERS/에블린 혹스타인

Pro-abortion rights activist Alicia Hurt holds a placard during a protest outside the Supreme Court building, ahead of arguments in the Mississippi abortion rights case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, 워싱턴, 12 월. 1, 2021. REUTERS/에블린 혹스타인 (REUTERS/에블린 혹스타인)

“지금, I’m not saying they’re going to re-institute 플레시 v. 퍼거슨 and we’re going to have a whole system of racial apartheid again,” he clarified. “But I think that shows a mindset that they are not going to adhere to the extent that they should to precedent.

댓글이 닫혀 있습니다..