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.
You want to see a miracle today? Look in the mirror. Look at your children’s faces. Look at your parent’s faces. Look at your grandparent’s faces.
You want to see a PSYCHO? LOOK at their FACES. LISTEN to their WORDS. EXAMINE their DEEDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRMf3wKBCPo
Good, instructive article.
The comments? Not so much.
Except if their last name is Sullivan in which case all bets are off.
Yup.
It could be an Emanation.
The last sentence is pure joke...
You mean the Obama Justus department was correct and the "Unaffordable Care Act" aka Obamacare, wasn't a tax ?
didn’t ACB say that as she understands it, RVW is settled law?
I don’t think her supporters are going to get what they think they’ll have.
“didn’t ACB say that as she understands it, RVW is settled law?”
She definitely did. The video was shown a couple times last week. (IIRC, Sandra Day O’Connor said the same thing.)
This point has a huge flaw. If the case at hand is bound by the decisions of similar cases in the past, then how did it ever get to the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place? If stare decisis overrides all other legal and judicial considerations, then there's no reason to ever have similar cases come before the court -- right?
Thanks for posting this very informative article. I get blue in the face trying to explain these basic concepts to RedTards.
This is true. Stare decisis never stopped a leftist judge. Roe v Wade itself is an example, as is "gay marriage". The same will be true when a future leftist court rules the 2nd amendment null and void.
Exactly! Moreover, anyone who thinks the death of Roe v. Wade is going to end abortion is badly mistaken.
Agreed.
One of the reasons the Judicial Branch is supposed to run slow and not legislate is so changes to political power don’t create legal chaos.
Over use of Executive Orders, State non-voted mandates all bring the USA closer to legal chaos.
They set a precedent for future legal decisions which in themselves are technically non-constitutional.
BULSH!
The word abortion, nor any obscure references to it nor any other medical procedure are to be found in the Constitution.
If, in fact, this is all based on a "right to privacy" (which is also not mentioned in the Constitution) but rather the Fourth Amendment, which outlines "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"...then it should pertain only to the sacrosanct "doctor/patient confidentiality"...not "the right" to kill babies.
Since DNA became common knowledge, we know that the embryo/fetus is not just a random clump of cells, like a tumor...nor is it the same DNA as the mother ("my body")....it is an individual, and the DNA also types it as a human being...a person.
This brief layman glance at the topic screams out that the ruling merely allows the patient and the "doctor" (first do no harm) to participate in the coverup of a murder.....but not the right to commit the murder.
If murder is a crime in any given state, then once any abortion or infanticide is discovered or revealed...it should be prosecuted as any other murder....R.v.W at that point would be immaterial.
Anyone who thinks Barrett can’t damage Roe by pushing it back to the states just doesn’t understand political dynamics and how they will work on this issue.
The media never lets facts get in the way of a story.
In the pimping business there are no rules also note democrat rules.
It most certainly did through 20-plus weeks by preventing states from banning it before that point.
All it will take to overturn Roe vs. Wade is five Supreme Court Justices deciding to do so.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade will pave the way for laws against aborion.
Exactly! When I was an undergrad student in college I had a government class as a part of my major and the professor was a hard core conservative but he liked to have real honest debate in the class and you had to defend your position with logic, I feel... didn’t count.
We were discussing SCOTUS decisions and Roe V. Wade came up and we had some pretty hard core leftist in this class who were not afraid to speak up in a debate and conservatives as well who fired back. When he announced the next case Roe V. Wade for discussion they started up and he said fine, defend your position and do it based on the decision rendered by the majority justices at the time and then he started reading the majority decision aloud and the conservatives in the class were whispering were these justices on an LSD trip when they wrote this pile of festering non-sense?
Finally one of the biggest and loudest liberals in the class stood up and said professor the majority decision is deluded cannot be backed with legal precedent, it’s not logical or even based in reality or law, there is no way I can get to that point using the majority decision, but I still think abortion should be legal and quietly sat down and hung his head. The professor took his victory and moved on to the next court case.
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.