• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
But the role of the arbiter of rules isn't to protect your pwecious (precious) society. It is to research the rules.
Click to expand...
Ironically, the courts disagree with you, if the interwebs can be trusted. Stare decisis dates back to the 14th century and is part of English common law.
 
Ziggurat said:
Given that the ruling spends so much time directly addressing Roe, I would hardly call it ignoring precedent.
Click to expand...
I was speaking more generally, not so much in relation to the recently disclosed draft decision.
Ziggurat said:
True. But it's been 49 years since Roe v. Wade. It was 58 years between Plessy and Brown which is basically the same time scale, and nobody suggests Brown should have given Plessy precedence.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware that the length of time between an original decision and a review of that decision, in terms of the balance between correcting bad decisions and having stability in the law, is a criterion for figuring out that balance.
 
Paul2 said:
I'm not aware that the length of time between an original decision and a review of that decision, in terms of the balance between correcting bad decisions and having stability in the law, is a criterion for figuring out that balance.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is. Some people seem to be arguing otherwise, though.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think it is. Some people seem to be arguing otherwise, though.
Click to expand...

If you don't think duration is, then why are you bringing it up?

Ziggurat said:
How long must a wrong decision stand before it can be overturned? Is overturning a right decision OK if you waited long enough to do it?
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
True. But it's been 49 years since Roe v. Wade. It was 58 years between Plessy and Brown which is basically the same time scale, and nobody suggests Brown should have given Plessy precedence.
Click to expand...
 
Paul2 said:
Ironically, the courts disagree with you, if the interwebs can be trusted. Stare decisis dates back to the 14th century and is part of English common law.
Click to expand...

That is because judges are historically bad people who take on roles that are not actually theirs.

Maybe you didn't realize my post was normative and not descriptive.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You brought it up (as did someone else). Flip flopping is an issue of duration.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that duration is one of the issues that affects flip-flopping (as, a reversal of a decision that happens sooner after the original decision can be more disruptive than a reversal that happens after a longer duration - although there's an argument to be made in the reverse, too), but my point - which I did not make explicit, but will do so now - was more about change itself. That is, given any duration of time, the more times a decision is flipped and flopped back and forth, the worse it is.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is because judges are historically bad people who take on roles that are not actually theirs.

Maybe you didn't realize my post was normative and not descriptive.
Click to expand...

I think that implies that even if a legal principle has been practiced and applied for hundreds of years, that carries no normative weight. It seems that that implies that the precedent of those hundreds of years of recognizing and applying the principle doesn't count. Yet more irony.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
I think that implies that even if a legal principle has been practiced and applied for hundreds of years, that carries no normative weight. It seems that that implies that the precedent of those hundreds of years of recognizing and applying the principle doesn't count. Yet more irony.
Click to expand...

Nope doesn't count at all. Why would it?

Other than having negative consequences, what is the problem with that?
 
Paul2 said:
Huh? I quoted you bringing up the issue substantively in my previous post, #1905.
Click to expand...

The issue was brought up previously. If I talk about what has already been brought up, that isn’t me bringing it up.
 
Paul2 said:
Because the basis of our legal system comes from English common law, including the principle of stare decisis, AFAIK. It's baked into the foundation.
Not sure what "that" is referring to.
Click to expand...

The only consequence of realizing stare decisis is wrong is the system fails. That seems worth the price to correct an error
 
Ziggurat said:
The issue was brought up previously. If I talk about what has already been brought up, that isn’t me bringing it up.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean "bringing up" in the sense of initiating, but in the sense of using as part of a position. Maybe "mentioning" would have been a better choice of word.

So, if that makes sense, can you go back to post 1903 and respond?
 
BobTheCoward said:
The only consequence of realizing stare decisis is wrong is the system fails. That seems worth the price to correct an error
Click to expand...
It's gonna be beyond my meager non-lawyer skills to try to challenge the idea that stare decisis is wrong, so i'm outta here.

Cheers.
 
Ok, the argument 'well they might just have a different legal theory' assumes that the ruling, as it is in the draft, is consistent with any given legal theory. You can't just say, 'I'm an orginalist!' and have it be a Thought Terminating Cliche like 'I'm entitled to my opinion'. If the findings are not in line with that legal theory, then you're not doing as you claim. More over, if the facts you cite are not what you say they are or not true, it doesn't matter if you're an orginalist, contextualist, consequentialist, or arborist; you remain wrong.

And the draft shows just that. It says that abortion is not consistent with our nation's history and tradition, and also not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (the Glucksberg test). This is wrong factually, is the wrong test to apply, and is based on a nonsensically cherry picked reference time. Alito decided that the time period that matters is the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Why? **** you that's why. Of course women weren't legally 'the people' according to the Constitution at that time, so using that as the timeframe is just dishonest. Besides that, just saying that most states at the time of the adoption of the 14th had laws against abortion ignores that 'abortion' was only considered to be terminating after the quickening (when movement is observable) which was officially normally between 20 and 24 weeks.

In addition, leaving aside citing things like Thomas' utterly unsupported 'abortion is black genocide' nuttery, the case Alito cites for his test, Glucksberg lists some things explicitly as being deeply rooted in our history and traditions or fundamental to our nation's concept of liberty. Take a guess what makes that explicit reference list? Roe. And Casey.

And like I said, it's the wrong test to apply anyway because it means that the past deprivation of rights becomes justification to keep depriving people of rights.

When something is wrong on it's own terms, the excuse 'it's just a different legal theory' is not supportable. It's evidence of bad faith.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
Ok, the argument 'well they might just have a different legal theory' assumes that the ruling, as it is in the draft, is consistent with any given legal theory. You can't just say, 'I'm an orginalist!' and have it be a Thought Terminating Cliche like 'I'm entitled to my opinion'. If the findings are not in line with that legal theory, then you're not doing as you claim. More over, if the facts you cite are not what you say they are or not true, it doesn't matter if you're an orginalist, contextualist, consequentialist, or arborist; you remain wrong.

And the draft shows just that. It says that abortion is not consistent with our nation's history and tradition, and also not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (the Glucksberg test). This is wrong factually, is the wrong test to apply, and is based on a nonsensically cherry picked reference time. Alito decided that the time period that matters is the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Why? **** you that's why. Of course women weren't legally 'the people' according to the Constitution at that time, so using that as the timeframe is just dishonest. Besides that, just saying that most states at the time of the adoption of the 14th had laws against abortion ignores that 'abortion' was only considered to be terminating after the quickening (when movement is observable) which was officially normally between 20 and 24 weeks.

In addition, leaving aside citing things like Thomas' utterly unsupported 'abortion is black genocide' nuttery, the case Alito cites for his test, Glucksberg lists some things explicitly as being deeply rooted in our history and traditions or fundamental to our nation's concept of liberty. Take a guess what makes that explicit reference list? Roe. And Casey.

And like I said, it's the wrong test to apply anyway because it means that the past deprivation of rights becomes justification to keep depriving people of rights.

When something is wrong on it's own terms, the excuse 'it's just a different legal theory' is not supportable. It's evidence of bad faith.
Click to expand...


Uhhhmmm.....yeah. Well, I would hate to subject you to more bad faith, so I'll just leave it be, and remove the subscription from the thread.

For people interested enough to follow up on facts, the assertions above can be checked. I think you will find if you investigate that there is some interesting interpretation going on.


Don't forget to vote.
 
Upchurch said:
I'm not assuming anything of the sort. That was literally the stated intent.


Yes, their takes on those merits are why they were appointed. They were appointed and approved by people who represent a minority of the population because they would rule cases in a way that conforms with the popular opinion of that minority.
That was the point from before. [snip]

You can't have it both ways....
Click to expand...
He wants popular opinion to be a non-issue only if said popular opinion is an objection to the court's ruling to overturn Roe.

Then it is somehow critical to ignore just how the SC is in a position to overturn Roe and only look at the fact the justices voting against popular opinion shouldn't matter.

Cherry picking at its finest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom