Fascinating that I missed your show of respect for this principle whenever Bowers v. Hardwick was discussed. Perhaps you could point me to a thread or two where you opined that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided because of its lack of respect for stare decisis. I honestly don’t recall a single such utterance. In fact, I seem to recall that you WANTED Bowers overturned.
Are you ever going to read what you’re told? I already said stare has to be considered as a factor, and with respect. It can be overcome by a damn good argument. That was in response to your false statement that I said it’s decisive. Having been given your clarification, you continue to wave the strawman.
If you’re not going to discuss this in good faith, you can discuss it by yourself. You too, Bricker.
OK. Let’s go from there. If 5 justices come to the conclusion that a fetus showing brain activity has a right to life, is that not a “damn good argument”? I’m not asking you to agree with the argument, just accept that the justices should consider it reason to ignore stare decisis. Shouldn’t issues affecting life and death be important enough?
Depends on the arguments and reasons for getting rid of it in the future. A decision based on new medical knowledge and refined fetal development research is far different than a decision based on “I think it’s bad because the Bible says so.”
I gave two arguments (brief though they were). What about those?
BTW, the first reason is not “because the Bible says so”.
Two questions:
-
What is stare decisis, for us non-lawyerly types?
-
When did the OP become “Is Roe v Wade valid? Will/should it be overturned by the new balance of the court?” instead of “Who will Bush nominate…?”
Like I said, it depends on what the basis for those findings are. A statement like “a right to life for an unborn child” has to be based in some kind of scientific/nonpartisan/unopinionated definition of what “life” is, for instance.
See the link “answer” in my post #76. Literally: “to stand by things decided”.
I’m not really sure why this would be a problem, jurisprudentially, politically or morally.
If we took brain activity as the threshold (rather more specific than independent viability, which turns on a concatenation of processes) we would at least have a bright line, susceptible of analysis in each specific case .
Would it be so bad to say to women: “Yes, you may choose to abort. And your period of unfettered choice is over after eleven weeks. After that, we will measure YOUR particular fetus for brain waves. That test may or may not impact you freedom to choose. Make up your mind, bitch.”
I thought those were the same question…
Yes becuase there is no legal justification for drawing the line at brain wave activity.
Thanks. So it means, in essence, to maintain the status quo?
We have many here who are more qualified than me to answer this, but…
It means more than that. In the context of this discussion, it means: give deference to previous court decisions unless you have a very good reason not to.
Gonzalez. GeeDubya tipped his hand. His defense of Gonzales from extremists “on both sides” raises his profile (as well as offering GeeDubya an opportunity to point out his own splendid character as evinced by his loyalty.)
Look for a premptive strike on Gonzales’ “torture” opinion critics, scorning those who would deny Gonzales his place because he isn’t nice enough to terrorists, and loves America too much.
"George, I’m a Supreme Court Justice, please stop calling me “Speedy” "
Headline: Torturous Confirmation Hearings Envisioned for Gonzales.
It’s “s” not “z” at the end, amigo.
Maybe not. We also know how much Dubya values personal loyalty, above perhaps anything else. In the same comment he mentioned how Gonzales is a friend and he doesn’t like attacks on his friends. That could well be the full extent of his meaning.
No, it would still be simply an assertion of faith, like any other start-of-life definition. They wouldn’t be coming to a *conclusion *, as you say, because that term implies the presence of some reasoning behind it, reasoning that in this case would have to be good enough to overcome stare decisis. And that reasoning would be, well, what?
So, if any definition of when life begins is “an assertion of faith”, what makes the present one any better… any less arbitrary?
Some reporting I heard on NPR indicates that the religious right has no real problem with Gonzalez, other than the fact that they aren’t REALLY REALLY sure of his position on abortion. They’re worried that he’ll turn out to have opinions of his own. Sounds like they won’t be satisfied unless they get the equivalent of a Catholic bishop in the Court. (Y’know, like Scalia.) They like to point out that 7 or the 9 justices on the court were picked by Republican Presidents and yet they still can’t get Roe overturned, “God” to be acknowledged in all classroom under penalty of catapult, or their own wives to go down on them.
Man, they don’t call ‘em tighty-righties for nothin’.
Its right there in the Scripture, St. Paul’s Letter to the Carpathians:
…Therefore, slobber thou not the knob, nor tongue thou the groove, lest thou be pleasured unwholesome, and distracted from suffering…
Ah, if only he had taken that left turn at Albequerque, and gotten nowhere near the road to Damascus, perhaps he wouldn’t have reigned as Pope Killjoy the First.
But seriously, folks: Gonzales.
From our friends at The Carpetbagger Report
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/
(Warning! Liberal blogger! Tighty righties advised: shields up!)
Waddles? Check. Feathers? Check. Waterproof asshole? Check. Floats? Check. Probability of duckitude? 95%