Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

LifeNews.com ^ | January 25, 2010 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday's decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.

http://www.LifeNews.com/nat5921.html

[agere_contra]

When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right," he added, saying “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”

Roberts. The best decision President Bush ever made.

[napscoordinator]

Now that would be the greatest thing ever. This atrosity has done more damage to our country than any Democrat could hope for. Dear God I pray they can once and for all do away with this nutty procedure. This is why we MUST have ONLY conservatives in the Senate so that we can be assured conservatives on the court. Yes Reagan f’ed up on his picks but he had a Democratic Senate and RINOs. 2010 we are going to ditch the Democrats but hopefully don’t decided to gain RINOs. Brown was the only one that should be accepted. NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!! This has seriously made my day!!!

[Huck]

“At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases," he wrote. “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

How on earth can he say minimum wage laws are constitutional?

[Huck]

Roberts. The best decision President Bush ever made.

Which one was the Harriet Miers fiasco attached to? Was that Roberts or Alito?

[AndyTheBear]

Chief Justice Roberts also said precedent could be reversed if its “rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.”

Indeed. The (very weak) rationale for Roe vs Wade was the idea that the bill of rights implied a right to privacy that prevented the states from passing laws dealing with the private matter of abortion.

However, today the public is being asked to help fund abortion...meaning that the "privacy" of the issue is out the window.

[AndyTheBear]

How on earth can he say minimum wage laws are constitutional?

Federal or State? I can see how state minimum wage laws could be constitutional, but I have more trouble seeing how federal ones could be.

[Moonman62]

Roberts. The best decision President Bush ever made.

Yes. It's hard to believe the same guy picked Harriet Miers.

[Moonman62]

Alito.

[Steamburg]

What ever the intent of this article, it’s tone is likely to energize the Pro-Abortion People. Instead of celebrating the affirmation of freedom of speech, the article sees the decision in much the same way the left saw McCain-Feingold act. I don’t begrudge them being Pro-Life, it just seems to cheapen the wondrous freedom of your group or company being able to press for your candidate without censorship.

[Dr. North]

Harriet Miers was tossed and Alito was nominated in her place.

Right now it looks like Alito and Roberts represent the two best decisions that President Bush ever made, and I for one am inclined to speak kindly of him because of them.

[Dr. North]

I had a “W” sticker on my door and took it down the day that Harriet Miers was nominated.

Fortunately, that situation was redeemed via Alito and Roberts.

[Fast Ed97]

I can see how state minimum wage laws could be constitutional..

Well if they would follow Lochner, even the state laws would be unconstitutional. Its unfortunate, that the freedom to contract is not given the "strict scrutiny" other so-called "rights" are given in the current law.

[agere_contra]

... minimum wage laws are constitutional

If this were a politician speaking then you would be right to infer that, but this is a Supreme Court judge.

He only said that "if X then Not Y". It would be unwise to read implication of Y from his statement. IMHO he's gently bringing along the other Supremes, herding them like cats, giving them the arguments that allow them to admit the truth - that Stare Decisis is not immutable.

I could be wrong of course. But I think Roberts wins one battle at a time.

[free1977free]

+ Alito

[goldstategop]

The Roberts Court said stare decisis is not always sacrosanct. So if the Court wanted to revisit Roe it could. But I suspect the political firestorm would be far more intense than the battle over campaign finance reform.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[gitmo]

“We are deeply concerned. ... Yesterday’s decision shows the court will reach out to take an opportunity to wholesale reverse a precedent the hard right has never liked," she added.

dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding. SCOTUS in Central Green Co v. United States 1935

[tiki]

Just keep praying.

[AndyTheBear]

Well if they would follow Lochner, even the state laws would be unconstitutional. Its unfortunate, that the freedom to contract is not given the "strict scrutiny" other so-called "rights" are given in the current law.

I'm not familiar with Lochner, but you seem to be implying that the argument used was stretching the Constitution.

While I think minimum wage laws are bad for the economy, I would not favor putting words in the mouths of the framers in order to get rid of them. We should amend such laws only in the prescribed legislative ways. Thus I'm inclined to think that the state minimum wage laws should not be overturned by a federal court. However, I am not entrenched in this view as I am no expert on law.

[Tublecane]

“Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday’s decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.”

Why? Because it overturned a previous decision? As if we didn’t already know that was possible. Libs, of course, have been lately pretending they didn’t know, but they’re lying.