Big Pimpin wrote:mikhayl wrote:The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.
I happen to think the original ruling in Roe v. Wade was a scar on the Supreme Court, so if this is the first step to overruling that, all the better.
What he said.
mikhayl wrote:In the interest of obejctivity, I'm trying not to think of this as a content issue but rather as a means issue. The Supreme Court did not adequately justify their decision in a manner that reconciles it with the prior 40 years of Roe related cases.
It's fine if the Court wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but based on the purpose and function of the Supreme Court (a perfectly independent arbitrator), they need to do it the right way.
I'm also trying to think of it as a means issue. And the '40 years of Roe related cases' are all fruit of the poisonous tree of judicial legislation started with Roe. I mean, a woman has a constitutional right to privacy, but only for two trimesters? It was a nakedly political ruling, which is why attempts to overturn is are good jurisprudence.
Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law.
This decision itself is blatant liberal politicking. 'The court ruled on Roe vs Wade, and because that was a ruling on an important topic, to reverse it would damage the reputation of the court.' Nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of Roe, in fact, suggesting that even if Roe is wrong, it should be stuck to anyway for the sake of the court's prestige. Well, the court reversed previous terrible decisions (see Dred Scott vs Sanford) and the world didn't end. Allowing such a horrible ruling to go on being the precedent by which the whole issue is determined undermines the court completely.
And yes, the Supreme Court was my favorite topic in college, and I studied it in considerable depth.