Roe vs. Wade.....

[Rogar]

It does happen both ways and almost always corrects earlier decisions that were flawed in one form or another. Everyone here complaining about legal precedence had no problem when the Obergefell decision overruled a previous 40 year old ruling, or when Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 50 something year old Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. It's happened hundreds of times, enough to ensure that while precedence should be a consideration, it doesn't make any ruling sacrosanct.

I've up dated my concept of legal precedence, although it looks like there could now be a new era of precedence. However, it appears that decisions are not only overturned to correct previous flaws, but to accommodate the political leanings of the composition of the court of the day rather than some version of blind justice.

[iris lilies]

I guess the thing that concerns me, and someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong, is that this is the first decision I am aware of that actually rolls back previously existing rights. Brown and pleassy and obergefell all expanded rights from the previous decisions they overturned. Are there cases that have done the opposite that I’m not aware of?

Coming from your point of view, which is, I believe, “rights of an individual“ perhaps you are right, and I don’t know that because I haven’t looked at all of these reversed court cases.


Coming from the point of view of “the constitutional right of states to govern themselves” you are wrong.

The constitution allows for additional “rights “to be enumerated in the constitution. There’s a process for that. The Supreme Court wouldn’t have anything to do with that.

[jp1]

And if a very basic "right" such as bodily autonomy can be taken away by the supreme court that means that all of the "inalienable rights" that we all thought we had are all just a bunch of fake, feel good BS. Every right under the sun is at risk now. This decision will be remembered by history as the first step in a dark dark era for this country.

I just wonder if they will stop before they rescind the Loving decision. It would certainly be amusing to see Justice Uncle Thomas's marriage put at risk of being made illegal by the radical movement he so proudly associates with.

[Yppej]

When you forced people to get an emergency use vaccine or lose their jobs or be kicked out of school, when you forced healthy people to test and quarantine, when you forced people to wear masks when data comparisons of different states and countries showed it made no difference, when you made it a crime to meet with family members outside your household or walk by yourself in the woods miles from others without a mask on you already gutted bodily autonomy. When you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.

[iris lilies]

And if a very basic "right" such as bodily autonomy can be taken away by the supreme court that means that all of the "inalienable rights" that we all thought we had are all just a bunch of fake, feel good BS. Every right under the sun is at risk now. This decision will be remembered by history as the first step in a dark dark era for this country.

I just wonder if they will stop before they rescind the Loving decision. It would certainly be amusing to see Justice Uncle Thomas's marriage put at risk of being made illegal by the radical movement he so proudly associates with.

Oh, I thought you were actually going to consider an answer to your question. I guess not.

As your comment about the Loving decision, why do you think Justice Thomas is not aware of this? Point to a source on the Internet please.

Here’s an example of similar: I am not disturbed about the Supreme Court handing state decisions back to the state. I am VERY disturbed about my state’s overly restrictive abortion law. See, we can have two thoughts in our heads about the same topic at the same time.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't think I come at it from an abstract individual rights perspective. I think it's impossible to ask women to live without having an option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy (option, obviously not something everyone is going to need or want). That it puts women into impossible situations. And sometimes such termination is just good medical care because it's needed for health of the mother of course, but regardless. So comparison to very dissimilar things doesn't convince me of anything.

I don't argue legal basis because I'm not a lawyer. 50 years of settled law should have been something though. But the honest truth is I think the law can be twisted into anything anyone wants it to be (not is always twisted or anything like that, but can be). I think this twisting is negative for fully born women in the here and now.

[JaneV2.0]

So no settled law or stare decisis--got it.

Since we're going all-out federalist, why not just do away with the Supreme Court and throw decisions to state courts? Just a thought.

[Alan]

So no settled law or stare decisis--got it.

Since we're going all-out federalist, why not just do away with the Supreme Court and throw decisions to state courts? Just a thought.

Probably because the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of other courts decisions and state courts have no standing in that arena.

[JaneV2.0]

Probably because the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of other courts decisions and state courts have no standing in that arena.

If it were dissolved, state courts could make their own decisions. Maybe we could institute a federal three judge panel for emergencies.

[Alan]

If it were dissolved, state courts could make their own decisions. Maybe we could institute a federal three judge panel for emergencies.

I just realized that if it's that easy to turn you into a states rights person, your suggestion may have some merit. We'd just have to figure out how your three judge panel would be different than our existing Supreme Court.