Posted on 05/14/2019 6:49:31 AM PDT by SMGFan
If you think the Supreme Court's conservative majority won't touch well-established legal precedent: think again.
In a 5-4 ruling on Monday, the court overturned a 40-year-old precedent in a low-profile sovereign immunity case, a move liberals see as a potential indication that the precedent set by Roe v. Wade could be under threat.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, "stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent," referring to the principle of legal precedent.
He did not suggest that there was an urgent issue or functional problem with existing doctrine -- simply that it was wrong.
Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent from the court's liberal justices, quoted from a high-profile abortion case and asked, "which cases the court will overrule next?"
"It is one thing to overrule a case when it 'def[ies] practical workability,' when 'related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,' or when 'facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification,'" Breyer wrote, quoting from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the landmark 1992 case that upheld the constitutionality of abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Is Roe in Danger? Liberal Justices Seem to Think So
The Supreme Court made clear on Monday that Roe v. Wade may soon no longer be the law of the land. The decision, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, actually has nothing to do with abortion; it concerns when one state may be sued in another state’s courts.
But Hyatt has everything to do with the Supreme Court’s respect for precedent. And respect for precedent is one of the few things, if not the only thing, that stands between the conservative Roberts court and overruling Roe v. Wade. Hyatt made clear that the five conservative justices are perfectly content to overrule a precedent merely because they disagree with it. That should raise alarm bills about Roe, particularly as states enact draconian restrictions on abortion.
In Hyatt, the justices were asked to overrule the court’s 1979 decision in Nevada v. Hall, which held that an individual could sue a state in the courts of a different state.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/opinion/roe-supreme-court.html
The almost 200 years before Roe vs Wade was the legitimate precedent which made sense....you don't kill babies. T
hey have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Very unlikely this will happen unless there is a sizable shift in the Country.
ABC is trying to rally the Bots.
No, they both joined in this ruling...
The should overrule the abomination known as homosexual marriage. No where is that perversion in the constitution.
Funny how the left isn’t (gay)married to stare decisis when it comes to cases like Bowers v. Hardwick.
> If you think the Supreme Court’s conservative majority won’t touch well-established legal precedent... <
At one time, slavery was well-established and legal.
Just sayin’.
Wickard v Filburn needs a review.
L
If stare decisis meant ‘settled law’ then the Dred Scott decision would mean we still have slavery..............
If you think the Supreme Court's anti-slavery majority won't touch well-established legal precedent: think again.
In a 5-4 ruling on Monday, the court overturned a 40-year-old precedent in a low-profile slavery case, a move slave holding states see as a potential indication that the precedent set by Dred Scott vs Sanford could be under threat.
Justice John McLean wrote for the majority, "stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent," referring to the principle of legal precedent.
He did not suggest that there was an urgent issue or functional problem with existing doctrine -- simply that it was wrong.
Justice James Moore Wayne, in a dissent from the court's liberal justices, quoted from a high-profile slavery case and asked, "which cases the court will overrule next?"
"It is one thing to overrule a case when it 'def[ies] practical workability,' when 'related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,' or when 'facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification,'" Wayne wrote, quoting from various State cases that upheld the constitutionality of slavery.
It’s the problem with court made law- it is easily unmade by the same authority that created it. Only the constitution is sacrosanct.
“At one time, slavery was well-established and legal.
Just sayin’”
And blacks had full employment, ya just can’t please some folks./sarc
Kennedy & co, weren’t shy about over-turning Bowers v. Hardwick, which had ruled (in the ‘80s!) that a state could enforce its anti-sodomy statutes.
Roberts would side with the libs on Roe.
But alarmed liberals is always a good thing. Keeps them busy.
So was separate but equal.
I think there is a shift going on in the country. I am surprised at the number of anti abortion posts on social media- posted by older teen and young adult women. These young women have been brainwashed by the left and didn’t buy it.
I hope we can replace RBG before it comes up to SCOTUS.
I very much want Roe v Wade to be overturned.
However, that would result in major changes in our society and there would be disruption as people became adjusted. Conservatives tend to understand the law of consequence (intended or unintended).
If abortion were illegal, our cultural view of sex would need to change, we would need different adoption laws, and probably institutions akin to orphanages. It would not be a picnic. But, in my opinion, much better than murdering 60 million innocent babies.
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.