People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v.
Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it >overturns a prior USSC decision.
What abot Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson? Were those overturned by
a later USSC decision, or by Constituational amendment, or by statute,
or even something else.
While the...
politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national consensus against abortion rights.
It appears that micky <misc07@fmguy.com> said:
People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. >>Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it >>overturns a prior USSC decision.
No, that's not why it is outrageous.
What abot Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson? Were those overturned by
a later USSC decision, or by Constituational amendment, or by statute,
or even something else.
I presume these are rhetorical questions and you know the answer.
Dred Scot was reversed after the Civil War by the 13th and 14th amendments.
Plessy was reversed 50 years later by Brown vs Board. Even at the time
Plessy was decided, everyone knew that separate-but-equal was
nonsense, but it eas excused by the country's pervasive racism.
Justice Harlan said as much in the dissent. When the court decided
Brown, CJ Warren was a skilled politician and he spent a lot of time
cajoling the rest of the court to get a unanimous decision because he
knew what a big deal it was and that the court's reputation depended
on it being respected.
There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous ones. For >example the "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" rule
in the 1919 Schenck case was discredited by dicta soon afterward and
was finally overruled by Brandenburg in 1969.
Lochner vs New York which
forbade minimum wage laws in 1905 was partly reversed in the 1920s and >reversed by Nebbia in 1934. That's not the problem.
What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed long >settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political. While the >politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national >consensus against abortion rights.
If Ginsburg had retired and allowed
Obama to appoint her successor,
or if McConnell had followed two
centuries of precedent and let the Senate approve Merrick Garland,
does anyone think Dobbs would have been decided the way it was, or
that the court would even have heard it?
On 4/21/2023 11:11 AM, John Levine wrote:
...
While the...
politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national
consensus against abortion rights.
Any statement that the public is for or against something should be
taken with a grain of salt.
On 4/21/2023 11:11 AM, John Levine wrote:
...
While the...
politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national
consensus against abortion rights.
Any statement that the public is for or against something should be taken >with a grain of salt.
People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v.
Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it
overturns a prior USSC decision.
There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous ones.
What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed
long settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political.
... nobody seriously argues that there is any sort of national
consensus against abortion rights.
If Ginsburg had retired and allowed Obama to appoint her
successor, or if McConnell had followed two centuries of
precedent
and let the Senate approve Merrick Garland,
does anyone think Dobbs would have been decided the way it was, or
that the court would even have heard it?
John Levine wrote:
People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning
Roe v. Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing
about it is that it overturns a prior USSC decision.
There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous
ones.
1% ... unusual classification of "plenty"
What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed
long settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political.
As opposed to Roe vs. Wade -
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 349 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 104:22:57 |
Calls: | 7,610 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,786 |
Messages: | 5,682,633 |