General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClarence Thomas Just Showed How Supreme Court Would Overturn Roe v. Wade
In 1992, the Supreme Court looked poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case protecting abortion rights. They didnt, however, and the main reason was respect for precedentspecifically, the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, or let the decision stand.
Would it do the same today, with over 250 laws meant to test the case pending in states across the country?
An otherwise obscure case decided this week, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, suggests that a majority of the court would not.
Hyatt was, in large part, about stare decisis. A 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall, held that citizens can sue a state in another states court. In 1998, Gilbert Hyatt did just that as part of a tax dispute, with tens of millions of dollars at stake. This week, the court overruled its 1979 decision by a vote of 5-4 and tossed out Hyatts claim. The split was on ideological lines, with the courts five conservatives in the majority and four liberals in the minority.
Of the 18 pages in the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, 17 are about the legal question in the case, which revolves around states rights, sovereign immunity, and the Constitution. Its no surprise that Justice Thomas, in particular, wrote this opinion, as states rights have been a focus of his for three decades.
What was surprising is that stare decisis warranted only 318 words in Justice Thomas opinion, almost like an afterthought, and that Justice Thomas summarily waved away this important judicial doctrine.
If this is how the courts conservatives treat sovereign immunity, how will they treat abortion rights?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-shows-how-supreme-court-would-overturn-roe-v-wade?via=twitter_page
still_one
(92,061 posts)2016 helped set the path.
The Jill Stein's, David Sirota's, Nina Turner, Briahna Joy Gray, Cornell West, Susan Sarandon, and others all did their share by voting for Jill Stein, but also encouraging others not to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016.
We lost TWO SC justices because of their bullshit.
lostnfound
(16,162 posts)Youre all worried about the percentage of the population that are crazy morons, meanwhile, the election was stolen.
Thats my opinion. It was going to be stolen regardless of whether or not 1% or 2% or 3% voted for Stein.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,423 posts)Doesn't seem like enough has been done about gerrymandering, or any of the points you mentioned. Just a lot of whining, and blaming people who didn't want to vote "establishment".
3Hotdogs
(12,332 posts)Most of us agree that was a good idea. We also hope to get an overturn Citizens United. So yes, overturning can work both ways.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)But Brown v. The Board of Education overturned Plessy with 9-0 decision. I think it is tough to legitimize overturning years of precedent with a 5-4 decision. If Roe is overturned the court will effectively say there is no right to privacy in the constitution. How many other decisions have sited the privacy standard identified in Roe?
It will be up to Roberts to decide if his court is going to be the one to allow states to criminalize abortion.
Is this really the 21st century?
3Hotdogs
(12,332 posts)Why do you think we got all those new hurricanes, floods, measles, tornadoes and stuff? Jesus is pissed at us for our sinnin' ways, like abortion and gay stuff.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)3Hotdogs
(12,332 posts)It was the Commies and Hollywood Librils that took Him out and now, we all gotta pay.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)lied their fucking asses off when they bullshitted about their belief in stare decisis and the original intent of the framers whie tryong to weasel their way onto the court.
The next con who comes before the Judiciary Committee and promises to respect precedent and settled law, needs to receive a pie in the face, followed by a swift kick to the nuts or ovaries, as appropriate.