Posted on 04/23/2020 7:26:20 AM PDT by rktman
Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion.
Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Since the 1973 ruling, abortion rights have been upheld several times by stare decisis, the legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases.
But the Washington Examiner reported President Trump's nominees, Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, took to task the court's "strict adherence to precedent" in a ruling this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If stare decisis were strictly adhered to, we would still have slavery (Dred Scott decision).
Why defeating any conservative POTUS that will be picking the next 2 SCOTUS justices for a 3-generation minimum effect. All the hate and slander at PDJT is all and only about SCOTUS.
I understand the arguments for following precedent, but they must always be secondary to Constitutional arguments.
The USSC has overturned itself before. See for example Slaughterhouse case. That forced the court to rule and impose each of the Bill of Rights onto the States. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t technically incorporated until the last few years.
Of course precedent isn’t sacred. Precedent is subject to the U.S. Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. If precedent is unconstitutional then precedent must be overturned.
The Court from around 1900 blithely and consistently overturned Court precedent of the 1800’s. Generally, with some glaring exceptions, Court rulings in the 1800’s were constitutional. Beginning in the 1900’s, the Court began going off the constitutional rails, again, blatantly overturning precedent without a hardly peep from anyone.
Time to overturn the unconstitutional decisions of the Court which themselves defied earlier precedent.
It’s part of what I like about these two men - deciding cases on older ‘precedents” is just a lazy Justice’s way of saying,
“no justice for you”.
Roe V Wade was THE Dred Scott decision of my lifetime... It is wholesale invented right, and judicial over reach, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIABLE BY ANY LEGAL MEANS...
A liberal court wanted to make it legal, so it just declared it so... defying all legality and completely overstepping their authority.
It is WRONG, on every level WRONG, and should be vacated.
The Left just loves Brown v Board of Education — which overturned a previous decision, Plessy v Ferguson.
Roe v Wade is ripe for overturning.
This gets at the fundamental error that liberals make about “conservatism” on the bench. The dumb ones don’t get it, the smart ones are just dishonest. Conservative jurisprudence might feel the need to actually justify overturning precedent with actual legal reasoning and an eye toward what a decision will lead to (unlike liberal jurisprudence), but that doesn’t mean that conservatives have ever stood for the idea that precedent cannot be overturned. It all boils down to this from liberals:
“Roe v. Wade is precedent and conservatives say you can’t ever overturn precedent so nyah nyah nyah Abortion Forever!”
That is literally how stupid and dishonest these people are. That is the “reasoning” of every feminist law professor. It’s the whole game. Do not ever think that you can have an honest discussion with people who are this dishonest and/or dumb.
Still plenty of inhabitants on the ‘plantation’ anyway.
Also, according to leftists, the whims of five judges on the SCOTUS are sacred and can never be overturned (if it's favorable to a leftist position, that is. Precedent in involving gun rights can be tossed out no problem).
If stare decisis were strictly adhered to, we would still have slavery (Dred Scott decision).
It is well known that the Court is inconsistent over time. No decision it makes is reliable over the long run. It might last 100 years, but that’s about it.
2000+ years of tradition destroyed by the courts with gay marriage!
Well, if it was, blacks would still be considered property.
Dred Scot has still not been reveresed by the Court. Congress over-rode Dred Scot with the 14th amendment.
And the answer to that tells you how sacred we should consider the whims of a majority of SCOTUS justices on a particular day.
That’s how the progressives view them.
I refer to this sort of case as the Court literally hallucinating some legal principle into existence, on their own power.
And then Congress endorses the decision by inaction, and later by labeling the decision “super precedent,” whatever that means.
Oh well. It’s their legitimacy at stake, not mine.
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.