Liberals alarmed for Roe v. Wade as Supreme Court conservatives overturn 40-year-old precedent

ABC News ^ | May 13, 2019

[SMGFan]

If you think the Supreme Court's conservative majority won't touch well-established legal precedent: think again.

In a 5-4 ruling on Monday, the court overturned a 40-year-old precedent in a low-profile sovereign immunity case, a move liberals see as a potential indication that the precedent set by Roe v. Wade could be under threat.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, "stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent," referring to the principle of legal precedent.

He did not suggest that there was an urgent issue or functional problem with existing doctrine -- simply that it was wrong.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent from the court's liberal justices, quoted from a high-profile abortion case and asked, "which cases the court will overrule next?"

"It is one thing to overrule a case when it 'def[ies] practical workability,' when 'related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,' or when 'facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification,'" Breyer wrote, quoting from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the landmark 1992 case that upheld the constitutionality of abortion.

[alancarp]

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.

[Gene Eric]

>> well established legal precedent

ABC is Disney. Remember that.

[FreeReign]

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent from the court's liberal justices, quoted from a high-profile abortion case and asked, "which cases the court will overrule next?"

OMG. The court ignored precedent and ruled based on the Constitution.

That's Justice Breyer's embarrassing dissent.

SMH

[Tucker39]

Hoo sez she’s even ALIVE now?! Has anyone SEEN her in the past 3 months?

[papertyger]

"stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent,"

Music to my eyes!

[Ancesthntr]

“Wickard v Filburn needs a review.”

---

Amen to that - that single case has allowed for the unfettered expansion of the federal government when there is even the slightest impact, or even no discernible impact, on interstate commerce. For those not familiar, this case was about a farmer who was prohibited from growing food on his own farm to feed his own family, because that would mean that he and his family would buy less food in the marketplace and that would affect interstate commerce (and the whole thing was based on federal intervention to stabilize and raise food prices during the Depression, so that farmers could stay in business).

Yeah, repeal that bitch!

[papertyger]

...when 'related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,

That "abandoned doctrine" was our Constitution, you traitor!

[papertyger]

Best
Election
Ever!

[Flavious_Maximus]

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.

[Wuli]

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.

[outpostinmass2]

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.

[Myrddin]

The Supreme Court is the last venue to review a legal issue. The concept that "stare decisis" would impede correction of a prior bad decision is unacceptable.

[Impy]

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.

[Intolerant in NJ]

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......