Reposted by Blake Rocap
Rufo often gets treated as a "respectable" conservative. His latest podcast episode — framing Indian-Americans as a problem in need of solving — is more evidence that he shouldn't be.
talkingpointsmemo.com
Chris Rufo — Known For ‘DEI’ and ‘CRT’ Panics — Tries to Make ‘the Indian Question’ a Thing
To the degree that a “respectable” or “moderate” right exists today in...
![Kgan dissent
Substantive due process has not been of late in the good graces of this Court—and especially of the Members of today’s majority. The Due Process Clause, needless to say, does not expressly grant parental rights of any kind. The relevant text bars a State only from depriving a person of “liberty” “without due process of law.” Members of the majority often have expressed skepticism—sometimes outright hostility—to understanding the “capacious” term “liberty” to enshrine specific
rights. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization...(2022). Substantive due process, one has
stated, is a “particularly dangerous” “legal fiction” because
it “invites judges” to “roa[m] at large in the constitutional
field guided only by their personal views.” McDonald v.
Chicago...(2010) (THOMAS , J., concurring
in part and concurring in judgment); Obergefell v. Hodges,
...(2015) (THOMAS , J., dissenting). [see footnote 2] Another has pointed to the “judicial misuse of the so-called ‘substantive component’ of due process to dictate policy on
matters that belonged to the people to decide.” Sessions v.
Dimaya, ...(2018) (GORSUCH , J., concurring
in part and concurring in judgment). And yet a third, when
defending the Court’s elimination of a 50-year-old right
grounded in substantive due process, explained that the
“Constitution does not grant the nine unelected Members of
this Court the unilateral authority to rewrite the Constitution.” Dobbs, 597 U. S., at 340 (KAVANAUGH , J., concur-
ring). There are many such statements to choose from in
this Court’s recent substantive due process caselaw. Especially given the Court’s last venture into the field, today’s..
——————
Footnote 2
For that reason, JUSTICE THOMAS has called for overruling “all” of this
Court’s “substantive due process precedents.” Dobbs...(concurring opinion). That invitation presumably extends to the
precedents supporting both the District Court’s decision and today’s per curiam.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4fdfjfnhhyeo4hsmoxpeazsg/bafkreigdihjaovx7uch5jdwdhqiqzmuhlcpuciigewiwazym64rirfgn6m)
