Replies

I think I know a little more about how the law works that you do. Michael Steele has said that he does not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but that he wants the court to follow "stare decisis". For those of you in Rio Linda that means that if any case comes up to the Supreme Court that has the potential of overturning Roe v. Wade, then Michael Steele would rather see the pro-life law declared unconstitutional than to have the court declare that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

You'd be wrong about that. Like most people who don't know what they're talking about, they SAY they know, and then demonstrate that they don't.

So go ahead and pretend that Michael Steele is a great proponent of the pro-life position.

What is with you people?

Look at my postings on this thread. I am ASKING QUESTIONS about this guy. I have said repeatedly I want to find out the truth; I don't know if he's pro-life or pro-abortion.

What is with some of you people around here who see ASKING QUESTIONS as a bad thing?

You may be satisfied about Steele--good for you, I'm happy for ya.

I have said over and over I am ASKING about him. I don't have an opinion yet.

What is it with so many people around here who find the search for answers a BAD thing?

I say "I want to know the truth" and you somehow interpret that as saying I think Steele is pro-life?

Your entire post is in the trash because of your position that wanting to know answers is a crime.

How do you people get through life if you have zero intellectual curiosity, and react to someone who wants to know the truth with hostility?

For you in particular, sir or madame, you really should learn a little about what you're spouting off about before you claim expertise:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,”[/b] [William H. Rehnquist] said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

In an 8-to-0 decision last term, the court overturned a pair of antitrust precedents from the 1940s that were noticeably at odds with modern antitrust analysis.

Sometimes the court overrules cases without actually saying so. Some argue that this is what happened in April, when a 5-to-4 majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act without making much effort to reconcile that ruling with a decision in 2000 that found a nearly identical Nebraska law unconstitutional.

...When the court explicitly overturns precedent, it tends to offer a checklist of justifications: the precedent has eroded over time through disuse or disregard (this was the majority’s stated reason for discarding the “unique circumstances” precedents in last week’s decision, Bowles v. Russell), or it has been a source of confusion in the law, or experience has proven it “unworkable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html

But I guess you know more about stare decisis than Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito.

Some of you dilettantes crack me up; it's not that you're just wrong, but you're more interested in posing than in learning FACTS.

I'm more than willing to conclude that Steele is a pro-abort if that, indeed, is what he is; I don't know, and am doing research to find out. But with people like you claiming to be the brain trust, arrogant in your lack of knowledge, no wonder conservatives have been outmaneuvered in DC.

You need to read your own posts and then read what Michael Steele said.

Michael Steele specifically stated that in regard to Roe v. Wade, rather than overturn Roe v. Wade, he said that Supreme Court should "FOLLOW STARE DECISIS". That means that they should not ignore the doctrine (as is the prerogative of the Supreme Court BTW) but that they should follow it, which means that they should treat it as settled law and not disturb it.

Now read what you posted:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,”[/b] [William H. Rehnquist] said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

Right.

The Supreme Court can FOLLOW stare decisis (and not disturb settled law) or they can IGNORE stare decisis, and overturn settled law.

Got that?

Read it again.

Ok now do you have the picture?

Now read what Steele said when Russert asked him directly if Roe should be upheld (which means NOT OVERTURNED). Steele said the court should FOLLOW STARE DECISIS".

That means Steele does not believe the courts should overturn Roe v. Wade.

But I guess you know more about stare decisis than Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito.

No. The problem is that YOU don't know anything about it. And if Michael Steele thinks he is pro-life, then he doesn't know anything about it either.