May an appellate judge choose not to follow an unconscionable SCOTUS precedent?

[Gadarene]

Poly:

The problem here is that there is a school of jurisprudence, with respectable leaders, that feels that “privacy” has no place in the Constitution other than the very limited grounds of the Fourth Amendment’s illegal search and seizure clause.

And there’s another school of thought, led by the estimable Justice Kennedy, who believes in a right to privacy–and locates it not in any penumbral emanations but in the guarantees of liberty provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

[Evil_Captor]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**I realize that Roe was decided on privacy, and not a “shocks the conscience” standard, but I think it could just as easily be decided that way if the States did things like chained pregnant women to their beds to prevent abortions. **

In some states, pregant prisoners are already chained to their beds while giving birth (the rationale is … get this … “security”). So it’s not like they’d be making a huge leap into the unknown territory of chaining up pregant women. We’s already doing that.

[Evil_Captor]

Some of you won’t buy my statement without a cite, so here’s one from Amnesty Intl.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/women/report/women-27.html

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**In some states, pregant prisoners are already chained to their beds while giving birth (the rationale is … get this … “security”). So it’s not like they’d be making a huge leap into the unknown territory of chaining up pregant women. We’s already doing that. **

Wow I think you’re on to something.

Most states control the number of conjugal visits a prisoner can have. It’s not like they’d be making a “huge leap” to control the number of times couples have sex.

And of course, most incoming mail is screened in prisons…not a “huge leap” for the gummint to censor all our mail.

Yeah yeah…that’s the ticket.

:dubious:

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**In some states, pregant prisoners are already chained to their beds while giving birth (the rationale is … get this … “security”). So it’s not like they’d be making a huge leap into the unknown territory of chaining up pregant women. We’s already doing that. **

Yes, and it is terrible that we are depriving that woman of her “joy of childbirth”. Although, maybe, just maybe, she should have thought of that BEFORE commiting her crimes- and just maybe not commited them .:dubious: :rolleyes: But, no- I guess SHE is the victim here, not all the dudes she ripped off.

“Handcuffed by one leg to a bed” does not equal “being chained up”. Don’t want to be handcuffed while giving birth? Don’t commit crimes .:rolleyes:

It’s like the “3 strikes”. Sure, sometimes the 3rd strike (which has to be a felony) seems minor (although usually it is another serious violent crime, the anti-3 strikes crowd only bring up the exceptions). But the criminal has already shown that they are a career violent offender, having had two earlier violent serious comvictions. So, their is a very easy way of not being caught and sent to prison for life for that 3rd crime- stop commiting felonies .:eek:

[Evil_Captor]

C’mon boys, lets follow the chain of logic and you’ll see why your points are moot:

OP: May an appellate judge choose not to follow an unconscionable SCOTUS decision?

Subsequent post: It has been established that decisions that “shock the conscience” are violation of Due Process, hence lower court judges could legally split with the SCOTUS on such decisions on those grounds.

Subsequent post: An example might be a result of a decision overturning Roe v. Wade which leads to pregnant women being chained to their bed to keep them from having an abortion prior to delivery. This would be a decision which “shocks the conscience.”

My post: We already chain up pregnant women, why would doing it to would-be abortion patients be any worse than doing it to pregnant prisoners?

Neither of your posts directly addresses this point’s relevance to the very minor point that led up to it. It’s prolly a hijack and better discussed in another thread. I’d create one but I’m not that interested.