Whenever a Republican president nominates a judge to the Supreme Court, progressives muse loudly about the importance of stare decisis, the principle governing the law of precedents. All they are worried about is the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In fact, stare decisis does not demand blind adherence to poorly reasoned rulings in the mold of Roe.
Those of us blessed by the love of someone with an extra twenty-first chromosome look forward to October. October invites me, along with all other parents of children with Down Syndrome, to proclaim loudly that our children live lives worthy of life.
If the federal government, via the interpretive activity of one of its executive departments, can issue mandates to the states regarding bathrooms, it is hard to imagine an area of local governance shielded from federal scrutiny.
For a trial judge, the jurisdictional implications of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision are not matters of idle speculation. They are pressing practical questions with grave consequences.
The constitutional crisis now unfolding in Alabama is a direct and foreseeable result of Judge Callie S. Granade’s orders.