Posted on 07/06/2005 12:37:57 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
We'll see. The choir here seems to be able to adapt to anything he does quite rapidly. They appear not to believe in anything but...Bush.
As a life-long Alabama resident/undertaxed citizen, it's apparent to me that many people let their stereotypical view of us down here get in the way of common sense. A political grandstander is the same all over.
He IS a wonderful Savior isn't He?
Ah yes, greed trumpeth all things!
You hit the nail on the head. This will unleash every evil thought that liberals and atheists think about Christians, spewing everything verbally what they previously would only think or whisper in private among cohortsa, and will sway these mainline church goers back into the fold. maybe.
LOL...
Ah yes, greed trumpeth all things!
---
Since when was stopping robbers from stealing your stuff considered greedy?
See # 79
FOUR judges voted to strike down Roe in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992. Scalia was one of them.
The authors of the joint opinion, of course, do not squarely contend that Roe v. Wade was a correct application of "reasoned judgment"; merely that it must be followed, because of stare decisis. Ante, at 853, 861, 871. But in their exhaustive discussion of all the factors that go into the determination [505 U.S. 833, 983] of when stare decisis should be observed and when disregarded, they never mention "how wrong was the decision on its face?" Surely, if "[t]he Court's power lies . . . in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception," ante, at 865, the "substance" part of the equation demands that plain error be acknowledged and eliminated. Roe was plainly wrong - even on the Court's methodology of "reasoned judgment," and even more so (of course) if the proper criteria of text and tradition are applied.
Maybe today's decision not to overrule Roe will be seen as buckling to pressure from that direction. Instead of engaging in the hopeless task of predicting public perception - a job not for lawyers but for political campaign managers - the Justices should do what is legally right by asking two questions: (1) Was Roe correctly decided? (2) Has Roe succeeded in producing a settled body of law? If the answer to both questions is no, Roe should undoubtedly be overruled.
The authors of the joint opinion, of course, do not squarely contend that Roe v. Wade was a correct application of "reasoned judgment"; merely that it must be followed, because of stare decisis. Ante, at 853, 861, 871. But in their exhaustive discussion of all the factors that go into the determination [505 U.S. 833, 983] of when stare decisis should be observed and when disregarded, they never mention "how wrong was the decision on its face?" Surely, if "[t]he Court's power lies . . . in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception," ante, at 865, the "substance" part of the equation demands that plain error be acknowledged and eliminated. Roe was plainly wrong - even on the Court's methodology of "reasoned judgment," and even more so (of course) if the proper criteria of text and tradition are applied.
Maybe today's decision not to overrule Roe will be seen as buckling to pressure from that direction. Instead of engaging in the hopeless task of predicting public perception - a job not for lawyers but for political campaign managers - the Justices should do what is legally right by asking two questions: (1) Was Roe correctly decided? (2) Has Roe succeeded in producing a settled body of law? If the answer to both questions is no, Roe should undoubtedly be overruled.
bump for later
bump for later
What the hell are you talking about?
I said no such thing, are you out of your mind?
I made a statement about "stare decisis".
I think he does favor overturning roe vs wade, so do several other judges, "stare decisis", is a legal concept he does believe in, so does every (but one) judge, yet they have all at various times wanted to overturn verdicts of the past here and there.
The idea of "stare decisis" is that you move forward based on previous decisions, you recognise precedents, it doesn't mean you can't reach a different conclusion.
Do you understand what "stare decisis" is?
It is not saying "someone before did it and said it is so, so now it must be so forever".
Try and focus on my words, not on some imaginary straw man that you think is saying something else.
(Rehnquist, joined in part by White, Scalia, and Thomas) The joint opinion, following its newly minted variation on stare decisis, retains the outer shell of Roe v. Wade, but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance of that case. We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases.
Roy Moore for SCOTUS Bump!
Roy moore Will get my vote for Governor.
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.