God is that an awful rationale. It can be a factor, but that’s a rationale for keeping up Confederate monuments put up for all the wrong reasons. And if he thinks that sort of thing is true, I’m sure he’ll vote to uphold longtime precedents he thinks are wrong.https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1141878289008660480 …
-
-
Replying to @brianros1
Courts should not be in the business of tearing down memorials & monuments that have stood since outside living memory.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Courts should do what the law dictates. I just hope every conservative applies the rationale consistently to the many precedents they hate that have long shaped society & are firmly ingrained.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brianros1
Also, worth noting that in typical areas of the law, there are statutes of limitations. This decision is shot through with the reasons why.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Sorry was working out. All I’m saying is the premise that because things are culturally ingrained and have been around for a long time, we owe them deference is the same reason, for example, Bill Rehnquist votes to uphold Miranda.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not arguing that the principle resolves the case by itself. Just that it is a conservative sentiment, which ought to count for something in the specific context of whether a longstanding monument should be torn down.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.