Posted on 06/28/2018 9:14:33 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
The Janus ruling was earth-shaking (in a hugely positive way). Way past time for out-of-control government unions (aka Democrat money-laundering machines) to be taken down at least one peg. But I thought the more important takeaway was SCOTUS putting in writing the idea that precedent is insufficient grounds for preserving bad law that conflicts with fundamental constitutional tenets.
"Fundamental free speech rights are at stake...and [prior precedent] Abood [v. Detroit Bd of Ed.] was poorly reasoned." - Justice Alito
It's really bad news for the lefties, who always scream about "settled law" and stare decisis. This ruling has huge implications for the future.
This could go back to Roe, which was based on an absurd extension of a non-existent Constitutional right. It could even be used to overturn the oft-abused “public accommodation” provisions of Brown vs. Board, which is founded on the refutable notion that “separate is inherently unequal.”
A lot of marxist oxen could be gored.
Oh, yeah!!!
Think about abortion and the woman's 'right' to murder another human being.
Marriage between one woman and one man has bee the precedent since the beginning of time.
Murder without cause, aka abortion, has been a crime and is the precedent.
Gay marriage and abortion as "law" was not precedent but legislating from the bench.
Exactly!
Please note that the title I wrote specifically says BAD precedent.
Dredd Scot and Plessy v Ferguson were overturned.
But my charge is that it does rise to be called precedent....it’s legislating from the bench.
No. This is not a precedent for overturning precedents. It's happened may times before.
Correction to Post 10....Does NOT rise...
Stare decisis does not apply to the Supreme Court. It can not because it is the highest court. That fact used to be taught in high school American history.
Dred Scott was mainly overturned by the passage of the 14th Amendment.
“Fundamental free speech rights are at stake...and [prior precedent] Abood [v. Detroit Bd of Ed.] was poorly reasoned.”
So, the new precedent is not to honor poorly reasoned precedent. Should the Court honor this new precedent? Rejecting it would mean accepting its reasoning.
“But I thought the more important takeaway was SCOTUS putting in writing the idea that precedent is insufficient grounds for preserving bad law that conflicts with fundamental constitutional tenets.”
“Brown v. Bd. of Education” overruled the precedent in “Plessy v. Fergusen” - which took 58 years.
Hopefully, the extraordinarily poorly-reasoned “Roe v. Wade” will be similarly overruled. From the standpoint of the Constitution (i.e. NOT morality), I don’t mind if some state or states decide that the ability to have an abortion is somehow a basic right within their borders - but to state that it is part of the Constitution with no mention of it, while simultaneously stating that the RKBA doesn’t exist when it is there in plain black and white, is as intellectually dishonest, and is as much of an affront to legal reasoning, as one can imagine.
I remember my Constitutional Law professor stating exactly this. He went to great pains to stress that from the standpoint of legal reasoning, it did not matter one whit whether you agreed with the final decision or not, the important thing to understand as a law student was the process. He showed us how several underlying cases, and Roe itself, just made up law from whole cloth. He objected to that, even though he largely agreed with the decision. He wanted it repealed, and for Congress to either pass a law, or for a Constitutional Amendment to make that result legitimately legal. He was mostly conservative, but on this issue was at least an honest liberal (there aren’t many of them left).
“Stare decisis” and “precedent” are excuses for ruling in accordance with past bad decisions instaed of ruling in accordance with the Constitution.
Wrong. Stare decises applies to all courts. All it means is respect precedent.
Wrong. All it means is respect precedent. Since American law is based on the constitution, statutes and case law, the courts must use prior interpretations or there would be no consistency whatsoever. When a prior precedent is determined to have been faulty it is overruled.
You’re talking In Theory and I’m talking In Practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.