Posted on 09/28/2020 4:56:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Leftists are attempting to sell the narrative that a Justice Amy Coney Barrett will instantly end Roe v. Wade, the premier Supreme Court decision governing a woman’s right to abortion. This is an untrue scare tactic used by liberals to control the narrative. Removing personal opinions and politics from the controversial conversation and inserting legal facts into the discussion will easily illustrate that this argument is FALSE.
First of all, the Supreme Court is not forced to take any case on any topic. Parties unsatisfied with lower court decisions can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case or grant a writ of certiorari. Four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. According to UnitedStatesCourts.Gov, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. This means that an abortion case must arise, a party must apply for writ of certiorari, and the court must vote to hear the case. So, step one is a hurdle in itself.
Second of all, if the court chose to hear an abortion case, they would have to get a majority decision to change the current law. One lone justice doesn’t create a majority. One rogue justice doesn’t get to change the law of the highest court in the land.
Abiding by the law and having judicial integrity is an extremely important concept to a justice. So much so, that when one becomes a judge or a justice in the United States, they must take an oath before rendering any judicial opinions. In summary, the oath says that a judge/justice will impartially administer justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
This concept is legally known as stare decisis. Stare decisis is Latin for “let the decision stand.” Essentially, it is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases with similar fact patterns in similar manners. Otherwise said, the case at hand is to be decided by the decisions of similar cases in the past. The past rules the future. This provides stability, predictability, and integrity within the justice system.
Stare decisis binds the justice to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions. Precedents are prior rulings. So, if a judge wanted to rule on an abortion case, they would be required to evaluate the facts and merits of the present case, while respecting the applicable legal precedents set by Roe v. Wade.
Yes, it is true that a justice with conservative values can work to limit or restrain certain laws, just like a liberal justice can look to expand them. However, all justices are bound by their oath. Justices are not advocates. We have a separation of powers within the government. The judicial branch does not legislate or write laws.
The power of the Supreme Court and its justices is to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. Amy Coney Barrett not only understands this power but has an unparalleled track record abiding by it.
Worse, she’s all for Jacobsen.
Forced, eugenics-style Gates mRNA vaccines, here we come!
Federal power can not prevent murder in the womb if New York and California permit it.
A constitutional amendment is needed to end murder in the womb in the USA.
I suspect cooked Covid contaminated food provides some level of immune protection.
Note that we hear figures of viral detections daily, but almost never of hospital case counts nowadays.
The Supreme Court will not address it until it has been outlawed in 38 states. Then, the Court will simply recognize the supremacy of the state on the issue and leave it.
Argument kinda fell apart here. I do NOT think the liberal wing of SCOTUS feels beholden to any oath or precedent, they are out to reshape society in their view.
The last sentence is pure joke...
Since when “knowing the law” is strong suit for Dems/Libs?
They have treated the SC as extension of their legislative branch to force the unwinnable issues onto America.
The normal issues that do not appeal to Americans, “let the supreme decide/make into law”.
Stare decisis is Latin for “let the decision stand.” Essentially, it is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases with similar fact patterns in similar manners …. . . like Dred Scott v. Sandford? or Plessy v. Ferguson?
The EUGENICISTS aren’t proudly publishing how many babies are killed each day?
So very coy...ours vs. CHYna.
What does Mr. Rogers Sweaterman think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQS3JGqx46U
It’s a joke particularly in light of Roe itself.
The only thing Roe v. Wade did was to enjoin enforcement of existing State laws. It did not “legalize” abortion, so overturning it will not make abortion illegal.
In the few states with laws on the books that make abortion illegal, overturning Roe v. Wade will permit enforcement of those laws. In the vast majority of states with radical pro-abortion laws, those abortions will continue.
The problem with Roe v. Wade is not the abortions (those are bad enough). The major problem was the assertion of power by the USSC to make a non-constitutional issue into one ripe for their intervention.
Any decision overturning Roe v. Wade that doesn’t fix that will be a waste of time.
“Settled” law. It’s in the PENUMBRA.
Well-stated. Let the states have their “rights”. Let’s see the distinctions.
Here's my latest idea...let's stretch it out...maybe from conception to age 3. By that time you can decide whether this child is worth your time and money. A simple needle...no head crushing.
Of course it's ridiculous....just as ridiculous as killing a child in the womb.
The can pay for them, also.
Is the Margaret Sanger award in the Clinton liebrary, Hillary?
Are we bitter-clingers, deplorables, dog-faced pony soldiers, non-essentials or ALL OF THE ABOVE...Berrie, Hillaryous, JoeJoe?
Politics are changed by simple concepts and phases. Truth be damned. Fear works better then logic.
Abiding by the law and having judicial integrity is an extremely important concept to a justice.
Yeah. Right. If that were the case the court would have thrown the question back to the states on Roe.
We understand the process, but this will calm down some of the dumbocrats who think she will do it her first day.
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.