- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Roe vs Wade Can Be Overturned!
I never discussed any oath. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
I don't know what, specifically, you are claiming is not simple. It is simple enough for the Supreme Court to overrule one of its decisions, as it has done many times. Stare decisis is not a sacrosanct doctrine. It can either be ignored, when a majority on the Court wants a change, or piously held up as an excuse not to make a change, when the majority does not want one.
The Court has sometimes overruled a decision on the sly--the legal term is sub silentio--as it did, for example, in Boumedience v. Bush. The Court in that case, while lacking the integrity to admit what it was doing, overruled Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that superbly reasoned 1950 decision, the Court had held that Nazi war criminals the U.S. was detaining overseas did not have any constitutional right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts contesting their detention. That just wouldn't do for the justices on the Boumediene Court who were determined to carry water for the unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo.
In other cases, the Court has openly overruled a decision, for example in Lawrence v. Texas. In that case, it overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court's first "gay" decision from seventeen years earlier, in striking down a Texas law against homosexual sodomy. Even there, the Court was disingenuous. It said is was overruling Bowers, which had upheld a similar Georgia law; and yet it was careful not to disturb Bowers' central holding: that there was no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
I never discussed any oath. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
I don't know what, specifically, you are claiming is not simple. It is simple enough for the Supreme Court to overrule one of its decisions, as it has done many times. Stare decisis is not a sacrosanct doctrine. It can either be ignored, when a majority on the Court wants a change, or piously held up as an excuse not to make a change, when the majority does not want one.
The Court has sometimes overruled a decision on the sly--the legal term is sub silentio--as it did, for example, in Boumedience v. Bush. The Court in that case, while lacking the integrity to admit what it was doing, overruled Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that superbly reasoned 1950 decision, the Court had held that Nazi war criminals the U.S. was detaining overseas did not have any constitutional right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts contesting their detention. That just wouldn't do for the justices on the Boumediene Court who were determined to carry water for the unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo.
In other cases, the Court has openly overruled a decision, for example in Lawrence v. Texas. In that case, it overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court's first "gay" decision from seventeen years earlier, in striking down a Texas law against homosexual sodomy. Even there, the Court was disingenuous. It said is was overruling Bowers, which had upheld a similar Georgia law; and yet it was careful not to disturb Bowers' central holding: that there was no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Last edited:
