Kukulkan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:10 pm
Vēritās wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:58 pm
But the ruling doesn't make "abortions illegal." That is just what's going to be happening in certain states because radical judges with no integrity lied during their confirmation hearings.
The judges declaring that Roe was precedent contrasted to the current overturning is not lying. The idea that precedent cannot be overturned is ridiculous. At the time of their confirmations, it
WAS precedent. Precedent is always being analyzed, and in some cases, overturned. It was exactly this idea that led to 60 years after Plessy v Ferguson, the 'separate but equal' doctrine being slapped down by Brown v Board of Education. If our country is to always be strapped down by precedent, we may have not seen the desegregation of society for another several decades, or at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... -roe-wade/
RGB has famously disliked the precedent and ruling of Roe. It has always had a shaky foundation.
They didn't just say it was precedent. That would have been a stupid question. Do you think it is precedent? Of course it is. What they were asked is how they would rule if the matter came up, and this is how they responded:
Amy Coney Barrett, 2020
“What I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that
I will follow the law of stare decisis**, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors,” she said during her confirmation hearing in October 2020. “I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”
Brett Kavanaugh, 2018
Roe v. Wade “is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. But then Planned — and this is the point that I want to make that I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors,” he said in 2018. “So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it,
applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”
Neil Gorsuch, 2017
Judge Gorsuch, President Donald J. Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, refused to say how he would rule on abortion.
“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” he told senators in March 2017. “It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
He added, “For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal. It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”
**
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_d ... 20decision
These people knew they could not get confirmed unless they assured Congress they would not seek to overturn Roe. They lied.
288860085_10100186504721235_6289441080314501817_n.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.