Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Reagan Man
I don't exactly know what you mean by a "point of technical precedent" but my reading of Luttig's decision is that he saw that time after time when the Supreme Court had a chance to overturn Roe they chose not to.

The issues in this case were no different than any others presented before and so he knew that any anti-Roe decision on his part would ultimately be overturned.

In a sense he did the pro-life movement a favor by not creating yet another Supreme Court ruling in favor of Roe and adding to the Supreme Court's stare-decisis support of Roe.

34 posted on 10/30/2005 3:07:46 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: who_would_fardels_bear
>>>>I don't exactly know what you mean by a "point of technical precedent"...

From the case under discussion. I'll let Judge Luttig give his explanation. Key paragraph. LINK

As a court of law, ours is neither to devise ways in which to circumvent the opinions of the Supreme Court nor to indulge delay in the full implementation of the Court's opinions. Rather, our responsibility is to follow faithfully its opinions, because that court is, by constitutional design, vested with the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution.

I think we're in agreement on the case in point and on Judge Luttig making a fine member of the SCOTUS.

42 posted on 10/30/2005 3:33:47 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson