Posted on 05/14/2019 6:49:31 AM PDT by SMGFan
stare decisis is yelled out in a prolonged, loud chant every time there’s a liberal cause that the Left is defending.
It’s never uttered at all whenever conservative issues are being struck down.
>> well established legal precedent
ABC is Disney. Remember that.
OMG. The court ignored precedent and ruled based on the Constitution.
That's Justice Breyer's embarrassing dissent.
SMH
Hoo sez she’s even ALIVE now?! Has anyone SEEN her in the past 3 months?
Music to my eyes!
“Wickard v Filburn needs a review.”
Yeah, repeal that bitch!
That "abandoned doctrine" was our Constitution, you traitor!
Best
Election
Ever!
Which is why it’s a States issue. In Pennsylvania, there was a clause in the constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The liberal federal supreme court, led by Kennedy, illegally overruled it.
There is zero CONSTITUTIONAL demand for stare decisis. It is an institutional construct of the supreme court justices themselves; a construct of their own making NOT demanded by the Constitution.
The equivalent would be Presidents and each new Congress holding themselves to upholding and refusing to undo any laws or policies written by their predecessors. Is it “sacrilige” for any new President or any new Congress to seek to throw out something prior Presidents and Congresses established? No.
Yet, when it serves the Left, Progressives, and Liberals, and only then, is stare decisis spoken of as holy writ - which it is not.
In fact, every new session of SCOTUS needs to approach their dutoes as a new Supreme Court, just as Presidents and each seesion of Congress sees themselves - a new President and a new Congress.
It is time there was an American judicial revolution that throws out stare decisis. Each case needs to find its own merits in the thinking of the current justices. That does not mean prior cases should not be looked at for whatever arguments can be found there. It does however mean that the prior case decision should not have any priority as to what the current judges think - none.
I don’t think our society would change a whole lot. Women will just travel to states where abortion is legal (New York) and once back home no one will be wiser.
With the exception of the very poor most can afford this travel.
California behaved terribly towards Mr. Hyatt.
But the constitution seems to be crystal clear on this issue.
Nevada v. Hall, the 1979 ruling that has now been overturned, appears to have been a crap decision.
One wonders whether the libs on today’s court would use their precious “stare decisis” to uphold the Dred Scott decision.
Meanwhile in Alabama the legislature is working on a bill which makes it a felony to perform an abortion, no exceptions - reportedly they know it is in direct contradiction of RvW, and hope and expect that eventually it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court - perhaps by then Ruth Bader will have left the bench......
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.