some other dude
New member
by the way kmo, it's been nice having this discussion with you.
toldailytopic: Raising Cain. What do you make of Cain's sexual harassment charges
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
No, they didn't. In fact, some of the Justices argued that the matter wasn't one properly within the Court's jurisdiction.
Beyond that and until you understand the importance a term of art, stare decisis, you are going to keep wishing for something that will never happen and waste energy on a tactic that won't achieve the desired end.
Casey v. Planned Parenthood set this out for you.
The obligation to follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks its outer limit. With Cardozo, we recognize that no judicial system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it. Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable...At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed...
(i) 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. Pp. 864-869."
(i) 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. Pp. 864-869."
Now stare decisis isn't a law that binds the Court and the Court has reversed itself prior on federal, Constitutional questions, but those reversals typically don't involve matters of sustained and reliable precedent; rather, they tend to deal with rulings that sit on questionable and disputed (highly divided Court holdings) considerations.
some other dude
New member
Now try for the actual point. On yours, it varied. In the British held colonies and at common law abortions performed before the quickening were a misdemeanor. Enforcement was nearly nonexistent and punishment was typically limited to the practitioner.
It wasn't until around the time of the Civil War that you see a great number of states outlawing the practice by statute. So nothing like the "centuries" and not terribly accurate else, given your focus was on a precedent that wasn't actually one prior to the first S. Ct. ruling on the matter.
some other dude
New member
True or false.
Roe v Wade was ground-breaking legislation because it made legal that which had not been before.
Well, false. Abortion laws weren't on the books in many states until well into the 1800s.
In Iowa, by way of exception, pre quickening abortion was held legal by that state's Supreme Court as late as 1856. The legislature reversed that holding by act the following year.
So it's a complicated subject. You might look at Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America if you want to read a more exhaustive examination. Anyway, you were wrong in your response both chronologically and factually. Until the Court ruled on it, there was no controlling precedent for the Court to follow.
some other dude
New member
Ahh, so abortion was legal before Roe v Wade.
So what's all the fuss?
btw, thanks for not arguing whether or not the SCOTUS was legislating.
In some form or fashion, yes.
It helps when you read the answer. By the mid to late 1800s laws were being put on the books and into state codes making abortion illegal. Prior to a fuller understanding of conception, medically, the standard had been a discernible heartbeat. Now with these laws the practice was pushed completely into the realm of criminal activity. So Roe reversed that.
I think that's always been a specious argument (the assertion that the Court was acting as a legislative body), but it wasn't one I noted in our exchange.btw, thanks for not arguing whether or not the SCOTUS was legislating.
some other dude
New member
About what I expected, substantively, from you.
You were, are and likely will remain wrong so long as you attempt to force the facts to fit your argument. You should read the book I noted. I also noted the Iowa Supreme Court holding that evidenced the struggle on point. It wasn't alone. I discussed the common law misdemeanor treatment prevalent but not uniform among the early states. And I set out the sea change of the 1800s and the alterations advancing medicine made on our understanding and the codification.
All you've done is infer one mistaken notion after another.
Let me know if you're ever serious about something more than asserting an unsupported superiority.
:e4e:
For every complicated issue, there is an understanding that is quick and simple.
And wrong.
People who only think in black and white are forever crashing into gray pillars they have no ability to detect.
And wrong.
People who only think in black and white are forever crashing into gray pillars they have no ability to detect.
some other dude
New member
So why waste your time?
Do you get some sort of ego boost out of thinking you bested me on an internet discussion board?
Are you really that pathetic?
I'm an optimist AND you either asserted or insinuated points in need of counter or clarification.
No. I can say with salvific certainty that correcting and answering you does nothing for my ego at all.
As for contests--that's another of your obsessions. I don't consider any of our conversations contests. But then, you started in on that notion a long while ago, just before you went into the cruder insults and insinuations. You only just made the same accusation with Breathe in prelude to "tard" variations and the like, I suppose, should he continue along that path.
Given that you began this conversation (post 58) and have continued it by either talking to or about me, looks like you're blaming the wrong party here.
And given you're back to character comments:
I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
So, feel free to blow it out either of your ears. :thumb:
some other dude
New member
Yep, you're just that pathetic.
Town, someday you'll grow up. Being a father will do that to you. Until then, you're still a child in so many ways.
Town, someday you'll grow up. Being a father will do that to you. Until then, you're still a child in so many ways.
I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
So, feel free to blow it out either of your ears.
Said the fellow who thinks "tard" is an argument and throws name calling tantrums when confronted with fact and reason?
Read the tome, look at the links, come to an informed opinion. You can thank me later.
:thumb:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
So, feel free to blow it out either of your ears.
Said the fellow who thinks "tard" is an argument and throws name calling tantrums when confronted with fact and reason?
Read the tome, look at the links, come to an informed opinion. You can thank me later.
:thumb:
What a "tardly" response....
What?!
lain: PS: koban says hi! :wave2:
lain:
Breathe
New member
She. :thumb:
some other dude
New member
:doh:
No offense intended and I usually default to the masculine (as per the indefinite rule) when I don't know that particular.
:e4e:
some other dude
New member
:doh: Dude.
Do you even have a conversational voice?
Or do you make a point of sounding like a pretentious blowhard?
Do you even have a conversational voice?
Or do you make a point of sounding like a pretentious blowhard?