Posted on 05/04/2022 12:05:49 PM PDT by bitt
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 Texas and Mississippi 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 Roe v. Wade, 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 “like cases should be decided alike,” 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 promotes uniformity and consistency 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 protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconversation.com ...
p
Bowers v. Hardwick was settled law, too. The lefties had no problem overturning that.
Roe v Wade was always a legal fiction. The penumbra? The right to privacy? These things aren’t there. That house was built on sand.
Striking down legal segregation was more than 60 years ago.
Mr Hardwick?
The guy who works at the candle shop?
Debbie knows him.
Close, it was the Georgia Sodomy case. Hardwick was the sodomite. You cannot make this stuff up.
Hardwick would have had no interest in the Debbies of this world.
Roe v Wade, IIRC, is regarded by many as very poorly written law to begin with. It would not surprise me that back in 1991, Day O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were very much aware of this even though they voted not to overturn it at that time.
Roberts will be remembered as the man who oversaw the total collapse of the court because he played politics all the time instead of looking to the law.
I think that was Robin. Debbie knew Mr. Greenfeld.
I suspect the court clerks are about 85% leftists.
The LSAT and ABA influence over legal instruction must end.
You'll know it was him if no culprit is ever identified.
Roe was based on faulty medical beliefs.
No consideration was given to DNA sourced partially from a father nor to the ability to supply growth nutrients to a fetus.
If you have a bulging belly one week and next week you don’t, people will notice. The right to privacy theory is nonsense.
Roe was always conditioned on fetal viability. Modern medicine advances rapidly.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
What misguided, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification, post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices are regularly failing to do (blatantly ignoring?) when establishing case precedents in our constitutional republic to also protect constitutional division of federal and state powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment (10A).
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's emphasis of the already clear meaning of 10A in the excerpt from United States v. Butler above, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard), wrongly deciding that case in Congress's favor imo.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Democrats and RINOs have since been using the Supreme Court's political correct "repeal" of 10A in Wickard to justify all kinds of unconstitutional interference in the affairs of the sovereign states imo.
Insights welcome.
Finally, it remains that we have a very corrupt, alleged election-stealing, elite Democratic and RINO-controlled Congress that cannot be expected to its constitutionally enumerated duty to expel Constitution-ignoring career lawmakers under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 (1.5.2) or Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
"Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member [emphasis added]."
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
So it's up to Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters to peacefully exercise their voting power in 2022 midterm elections to effectively make 1.5.2 and Section 3 work, applying Section 3 to both federal and state governments.
And speaking of voting power, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates. (Good work OH, IN patriots on yesterday primaries!)
Again, insights welcome.
Unless court clerks have to turn in their cell phones upon entry, every clerk will have had a camera probably.
the court overturned 1000’s of years of precedent to make gay marriage legal!
IIRC Roe was very much about the issue that the birthing procedure was way more risk to the woman than an abortion.
I would think that has changed with much more modern medical conditions.
This Hass to irritate Roberts to no end since he’s so stuck on precedents. What they should be doing is not having precedence But rather judging each case by the constitution in the Bill of Rights alone.
You forgot the emanations too lol
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.