activist ct precedent

<div>=</div><div>see stare decisis</div><div>
</div><div>-----</div><div>opus dei?!
tom b raw an 10 22In a blunt-talking editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the editors took two of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court to task for doing little to halt the slide in the court's credibility that has been in freefall after it became a 6-3 conservative majority.Specifically, they cited Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito over a Thomas ruling last week, and a report on Alito dating back to his confirmation in 2005.In the case of Thomas, last week he interceded on behalf of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is balking at having to testify in an election corruption case in Georgia related to Trump's phone call to Georgia's secretary of state.Regarding his ruling temporarily granting Graham relief, the editors wrote, "... as with anything regarding that election, having Thomas involved in any way automatically looks suspect because of his wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas. In the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, Ginni Thomas flooded Trump’s inner circle with unhinged texts calling Joe Biden’s election a 'coup,' suggesting the Biden 'crime family' should face 'military tribunals for sedition,' and generally encouraging resistance to accepting the election outcome."The editors added, "In what universe is it OK for Justice Thomas not to recuse himself from anything Jan. 6-related when this is the kind of pillow talk he goes home to at night?"As for Alito, he was scorched for l<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/24/us/politics/alito-kennedy-abortion.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 13, 101); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">ying his way onto the court</a> that led to his Dobbs's majority decision that gutted Roe v. Wade 17 years later.With the New York Times reporting that Alito had assured Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that he had no intention of overturning Roe, saying, "I am a believer in precedents. People would find I adhere to that,” the Post-Dispatch editors slammed him for his "mendacity.""That mendacity is hardly a surprise, nor is Alito alone in it," they wrote. "All five conservative justices who voted in June to overturn Roe (Roberts concurred, but stopped short of endorsing full reversal) have at various times waxed on about the sanctity of precedent generally — and have, to varying degrees, offered assurance they weren’t going to go out of their way to flip Roe as soon as they had the votes to do it. Which, of course, is exactly what they did."<div style="color: rgb(49, 49, 49); font-family: Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The editors also took a shot at Chief Justice John Roberts for acting like he doesn't understand why the court he heads has lost the confidence of the public.With Roberts complaining, "I don't understand the connection between (Supreme Court) opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Court," the editors explained, "As we noted then, his frustration is misplaced. These latest developments further illustrate why."You can read <a href="https://nordot.app/958310304558120960?c=592622757532812385" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(11, 13, 101); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">the whole piece here</a>.</div>=an 7 22 lucien t 4
watching Justice Samuel Alito go spelunking in his Dobbs opinion

through centuries of so-called history and tradition in search of legal

justifications to overturn the right to abortion decided almost 50 years

ago in Roe v. Wade was like watching a boy play in a pile of dirt.

Where do I dig next, he seemed to be muttering to himself as he shoveled

manure from a slave-era law in Virginia onto an 18th-century pile of

garbage he quoted from some doofus who believed women were inferior

beings. Clarence Thomas was right there behind him in his decision that

New York can't prevent people from carrying concealed weapons, plowing

through statutes from jolly old England and the American frontier to

show that Dodge City didn't really mean it when they told cowboys they

had to check their six-guns with the sheriff if they came into town. And

then along came Chief Justice Roberts as clean-up man, swinging the

club of something known as the "major questions doctrine" to deny the

Environmental Protection Agency its statutory authority to — duh —

protect the environment unless Congress spells out exactly how they

should do it. According to Roberts, it is Congress, not the EPA, that

has to write a rule telling corporations they can't empty industrial

waste directly into creeks, rivers or the ocean because it's a "major

question" if it costs corporations a lot of money, so let's make it as

hard as possible for the government to take a chunk out of our golf

buddies' bottom lines.Throughout the entire year of decisions by a

court that for the first time included all three of the Supreme Court's

newest and most conservative members, the Republican majority decided

to jettison the doctrine of stare decisis, which means to stand by things decided, and employ their own doctrine on how precedents should be treated: Stare quisquilias acervum

or "stand by the trash heap," where they proceeded to throw the court's

previous decisions and entire articles of the Constitution.All

of this in service to their favorite doctrine of all — rights granted

by the Constitution must be "deeply rooted in the nation's history and

tradition" or they aren't really rights at all. Legal scholars have been

predicting that the court will use its new jewel of a doctrine to

overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, not to mention other recent

decisions recognizing rights under the privacy provision of the equal

protection clause of the 14th Amendment … because we have no "history

and tradition" of same-sex marriage or gay sex or rubbers or the pill,

or anything else they simply don't like.To justify its

abandonment of the court's "history and tradition" of respecting and

upholding its previous decisions, the Supreme Court called upon a

favorite from an era they apparently revere, states' rights. Speaking

for the court's conservative majority, Alito decided to "return"

abortion to the control of the states, several of which promptly made

performing abortions illegal and effectively established new rules — or

re-established old ones — which dictated that women must carry to term

babies resulting from rape or incest, and then give birth to them,

relying, it would seem, on our deeply rooted history and tradition of

slavery.What can be done about the court's prejudice masquerading

as reason? Doesn't the wrongheadedness of the "history and tradition"

of the way women were treated at the time the 14th Amendment was written

tell us something about all the anti-abortion laws of the past Alito

quoted in the world's longest footnote? Women weren't allowed to vote,

to sit on juries, to own property separate from husbands or male members

of their families, and in some states they did not have the right to

sign contracts. Oh, by the way, they weren't allowed to have abortions,

either.It took decades of fighting for women's rights for us to

get rid of some forms of prejudice against women. But "history and

tradition" demands we go back to banning abortions, according to Alito.Alito's

decision features a gigantic hole not even the dissenters pointed out:

To have "history and tradition," it has to start somewhere. Precedents

become part of history only after they make history. If the

court is going to require that all our rights must be grounded in

history and tradition, that's exactly what Obergefell and the other

privacy rights decisions do. They establish a baseline of history that

can be depended upon in the future rather than reaching back to 1868 in

search of one.I say if they're not going to respect their own

decisions, then neither should we, and neither should lower court

federal judges and state judges and legislatures. Legal scholars use the term "vertical stare decisis"

to describe the principle that lower courts should follow and respect

the decisions of the Supreme Court. But the law is not something handed

down from a higher power or engraved on a tablet with a hammer and

chisel. It is a living thing, and it has to breathe and move and eat and

expel waste in order to stay alive, and some of the waste that must be

expelled can be found in the court's most recent decisions.....</div><div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>aha not an accident it's women's rights roe v wade and griswold AND brown v bd for AA POC that are under attack by trump gubmint  authoritarian xian nat'list STATES RIGHTS BS</div><div>AN 2 22</div><div>A debate between the Republicans running for Michigan attorney general confirmed warnings from reproductive rights advocates that Republicans aren’t going to stop with abortion bans—they’re coming for birth control next. In the last question of last Friday’s debate, <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/02/michigan-republicans-give-terrifying-answers-on-a-landmark-contraception-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">all three men said</a> they thought the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down laws banning the sale of contraception had been wrongly decided, because states’ rights.At least two of the three candidates did not know what Griswold v. Connecticut was about—which itself is kind of an issue in people campaigning to be Michigan’s top lawyer, since Griswold is a pretty damn famous case. (I literally learned about it in high school, and I am not a lawyer.) But all three agreed, once they learned what it was, that it was bad.The Connecticut law struck down in Griswold allowed the prosecution of married couples for buying contraception. In Griswold, the Supreme Court said that the law violated the “right to marital privacy,” foreshadowing the privacy right that would be invoked in Roe v. Wade in 1973.Here’s what the Michigan Republicans seeking to be the state’s top law enforcement officer had to say about the marital right to privacy around birth control decisions.“Remind me,” Tom Leonard, the former speaker of the state House, said. After an explanation, he was ready to condemn the decision.“Yeah, okay, I just, and I wanted clarification,” Leonard said. “This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because it was an issue that trampled states’ rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”State Rep. Ryan Berman literally pulled out his phone during that exchange.”Yeah, you know what, I wasn’t familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut, but I’m an advanced legal researcher so I pulled it up real quick to look what it’s about,” he said. “And it says the court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. Again, I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I’m all about states’ rights and limiting federal judicial activism.”Matthew DePerno, endorsed by Donald Trump for enthusiastically signing on to the Big Lie about the 2020 elections, had the same basic answer, minus the admission that he didn’t know what he was talking about.”Listen, all these cases that deal—Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs— these are all state right issues. I think that’s what we’re gonna see with the US Supreme Court. They’re gonna come down on the side that these liberty issues—number one, the wide expanse that was given on Roe v. Wade and this litany—are unworkable. The Supreme Court has to deal with that, has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a state right issue on all of these things—as it should be!”DePerno <a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2022/02/20/gop-attorney-general-hopefuls-seek-to-overturn-landmark-contraception-law-push-for-election-audit/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">wasn’t done</a>. “We need to start defending state rights as attorney generals, across this country,” he said. “Too many people, even in our own party, too many people have lost the idea of what states’ rights means. They haven’t read the works of our Founding Fathers. They haven’t read The Federalist Papers. They continue to push the idea that we need to give rights away to the federal government. We don’t. We need to take state rights back. We need to stand in our borders. When the feds come and try to take our rights, we need to stand as citizens in Michigan and hold the line and protect states’ rights.”So, yes. Republicans are 100% coming for the right to obtain birth control once the Trump Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, with that decision likely coming this June. Already some states are advancing <a href="https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2022/01/19/how-the-anti-abortion-movement-is-already-building-a-post-roe-world/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">personhood legislation</a>, which would declare an embryo or fetus to be a legal person. Such laws criminalize abortion, but they also potentially ban forms of birth control like the pill, IUDs, and emergency contraception.”All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel <a href="https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">tweeted Friday evening</a>. “You read that right. Terrifying.”Lots of people who support abortion rights spent years responding lackadaisically to warnings that Republicans were stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and legalize abortion bans. Now we see how true those warnings were, as they come to fruition. It’s time to sit up and listen to the warnings that Republicans won’t stop there.</div><div>=</div></div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/supreme-court-2655063879/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/supreme-court-2655063879/</a></div><div>
</div><div>It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it's inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an earlier case.In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court faces the question of whether to overrule itself on abortion rights. Recent laws in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/19/texas-abortion-law-abbott/" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Texas</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade/2021/05/17/cdaf1dd6-b708-11eb-a6b1-81296da0339b_story.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Mississippi</a> restrict the right of women to terminate pregnancies in ways that appear to challenge the long-standing precedent of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Roe v. Wade</a>, which allowed women to have abortions in most circumstances.Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. First is the idea of equity or justice, under which “ <a href="https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/15-john-walker/#:%7E:text=I.-,How%20Does%20a%20Case%20Become%20a%20Binding%20Precedent%3F,cases%20should%20be%20decided%20alike.&text=First%2C%20as%20compared%20with%20the,as%20applied%20to%20similar%20facts." style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">like cases should be decided alike</a>," as one senior federal judge put it. If a court in the past reviewed a particular set of facts and decided a case in a specific way, fairness dictates it should decide another similar case the same way. Precedent <a href="http://www.nonpublication.com/schauer.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">promotes uniformity and consistency</a> in the law.In addition, precedent promotes judicial efficiency: Courts do not have to decide from scratch every time. Finally, following precedent promotes predictability in the law and <a href="https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol47/iss2/2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior</a>.But not all precedents are equal, and several current Supreme Court justices have signaled that they might be open to overturning even long-standing rulings that interpret the Constitution.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Reversing precedent is unusual</h2>The Supreme Court rarely overturns its past decisions or precedents.In my forthcoming book, “Constitutional Precedent in Supreme Court Reasoning," I point out that from 1789 to 2020 there were 25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgments after oral arguments. The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only 145 times – barely one-half of one percent.The court's historic periods are often characterized by who led it as chief justice. It was not until the 1930s under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that it started to overturn precedents with any frequency. These were cases such as <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/312/657/USSC_PRO_312_100_82" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">United States v. Darby</a>, in which the court began to affirm President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal economic policies after previously rejecting them as unconstitutional.Before then, of course, many cases asked the court to interpret clauses of the Constitution for the first time, so there were often no precedents to confront or overturn.Under Chief Justices Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and now John Roberts, the court overturned constitutional precedent 32, 32, 30 and 15 times, respectively. That is well under 1% of decisions handled during each period in the court's history.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">When is precedent overturned?</h2>For most of its history the court changed its mind only when it thought past precedent was unworkable or no longer viable, perhaps eroded by its subsequent opinions or by changing social conditions.This happened in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/304/64" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Erie Railroad v. Tompkins</a>, a 1938 Supreme Court case overturning a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/41/1" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">96-year-old precedent</a> in which the court had constructed rules about how federal courts should handle cases involving parties from different states. The court in Erie said that the original decision proved to be unworkable and had been undermined by the court's own later decisions.The court has also said that its precedents based on <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-5721.ZO.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">constitutional grounds</a> deserve less respect than those in which the court interprets statutes or laws. The reason is that if Congress thinks the court has erred in a matter of interpreting a statute or law, it is relatively easy for them to overturn it by passing a new law. But it's quite hard to pass a constitutional amendment, so the only real way to update the judicial understanding of the Constitution is to overrule a precedent.Of course the most famous reversal of precedent is the 1954 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brown_v_board_of_education_(1954)" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Brown v. Board of Education</a> under the Warren Court, in which it reversed <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Plessy v. Ferguson</a> and struck down segregation under the “separate but equal" doctrine.Roe v. Wade is an important precedent. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. That right was reaffirmed in 1991 in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</a>, with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter noting that an entire generation of women came of age relying upon their right to control their bodies and terminate pregnancies in most circumstances. The justices said it would be wrong to upset that expectation.<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rights-Turn-Conservative-Christian-Politics/dp/1108405606/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=abortion+politics&qid=1631829608&s=books&sr=1-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Roe has also spurred opposition</a>, with many wanting to overturn it. For years, presidents including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump sought to appoint justices to the Supreme Court with <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearings-updates-and-analysis-on-the-supreme-court-nominee/trump-promised-judges-who-would-overturn-roe-v-wade/" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">the goal of overturning Roe</a> and, with it, abortion rights. Now with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-ways-a-6-3-supreme-court-would-be-different-146558" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">6-3 conservative majority</a>, the court may be poised to do that.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Justices get more comfortable reversing precedent</h2>Beginning with the Rehnquist court, justices have become more willing to reject precedents they think were badly reasoned, simply wrong, or inconsistent with their own senses of the constitutional framers' intentions. Justice <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-1323" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Clarence Thomas</a> has taken this position on abortion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/daily-202-big-idea/supreme-court-nominee-does-not-consider-roe-v-wade-a-super-precedent/" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Senate confirmation hearing</a> argued that Roe is not a so-called superprecedent, a decision so important or foundational that it cannot be overturned.Chief Justice Roberts has been willing to overturn settled law when he thinks the original opinion was not well argued. He did so in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Citizens United</a>, a 2010 decision overturning two major campaign finance decisions, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/652" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce</a> and part of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">McConnell v. FEC</a>.In 2020, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-5924" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Ramos v. Louisiana</a> went out of their way to explain and justify their views on when constitutional precedent may be overturned. They echoed Justice Samuel Alito's discussion in 2018 in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-1466" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council Number 31</a>. All three justices said constitutional precedent is merely a matter of court policy or discretion, more easily overturned than a precedent about a law. Sometimes, they said, constitutional precedents can be overruled if later judges view them as wrongly decided or reasoned.Abortion foes have been preparing practically since Roe was decided to overturn it. They have set both the political conditions and legal justification to overturn Roe, and perhaps this year it will be the time when it finally happens. <img alt="The Conversation" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168052/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle; max-width: 100%;" width="1" height="1" /><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-schultz-541364" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">David Schultz</a>, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota; Professor of Political Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/hamline-university-2113" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Hamline University</a></div><div>
</div><div>=</div>