SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Stare Decisis
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1594386568

Message started by Eegore on 07/10/20 at 06:09:28

Title: Stare Decisis
Post by Eegore on 07/10/20 at 06:09:28

Latin: "to stand by things decided"

That is the doctrine for US Court precedent.

The latest Supreme Court decision regarding an abortion law / change is important, but not because of the result of the decision alone.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf

Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented on the previous Texas ruling decided to change his stance based off of "stare decisis" or legal precedent.

"instructs us to treat like cases alike, the Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law"

This means Justice Roberts chose to uphold the standard of US law over choosing a political stance. This is exactly what a judge is supposed to do, and as such reduces the impact of things like politicians parading potential Justices names around in their election campaigns. For instance when Trump said "That will happen, automatically in my opinion" when discussing Roe v Wade and who he will appoint as SC Justices.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html

The shut-down Texas law was almost identical to the current Louisiana one in question. This was considered a potential "win" simply because the Supreme Court Justices changed and the balance of political affiliation shifted. If an identical law passes based off of political affiliation, and not legal structure, we are all in trouble.

Whether one agrees with the outcome of the decision or not, we should all be happy that law was actually followed over opinion, affiliation and campaign contributions.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by MnSpring on 07/10/20 at 07:35:00

6444464E5344210 wrote:

... This is exactly what a judge is supposed to do ...

"...Trump said that if the ruling were to be reversed, laws on the legality or illegality of abortion would “go back to the individual states” to decide, which was the case prior to Roe v. Wade. ..."

Comment on why it is a good thing,
When the Feds say something is illegal.
That a State can say it is perfectly OK,
and the Feds do Nothing.
(Like MJ & sanctuary)

Yet when the Fed says something else,
It must be obeyed ?

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by Eegore on 07/10/20 at 08:28:20

"Comment on why it is a good thing,
When the Feds say something is illegal.
That a State can say it is perfectly OK,
and the Feds do Nothing.
(Like MJ & sanctuary)"

That's not what I am talking about. I said agreeing or not agreeing with the judgement is not as important as a Supreme Court Justice maintaining the structure of law.

I am saying a Supreme Court justice in exclusivity, to exclude any and all other professions, persons, things, laws, situations, or any related judicial or legal position, process or method.

Specifically and only a Supreme Court Justice, is supposed to follow legal procedure, over... specifically "over" as in to prioritize first, law, over political affiliation.

Specifically and only "Political Affiliation".

A Supreme Court Judge is supposed to interpret law over personal or political opinion.

If a State doesn't want to follow this, then don't and maybe lose the funding etc. associated with such things. Just like MJ and sanctuary cities, and women's right to vote way back in the day.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by MnSpring on 07/10/20 at 12:07:23

4565676F7265000 wrote:

... State doesn't want to follow this, then don't and maybe lose the funding etc.

"...maybe ..."

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And another great move of putting, your, words in someone else's post.

"... Stop saying masks don't work because of Socialists ..."

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by Eegore on 07/10/20 at 12:30:25

"And another great move of putting, your, words in someone else's post.

"... Stop saying masks don't work because of Socialists ...""

Describe to me how I put words into your post here in this thread and only this thread. I very clearly clarified my post exclusively.

When I use the words "I am saying" how am I referencing you?

Or we can stop playing games and pretending that interpreting a phrase is equal to "quoting" a person.

"Maybe" means exactly that. Some State defiance results in reduced funding and some do not.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by eau de sauvage on 07/10/20 at 20:07:05

@Eegore,

Don't get sucked into Roberts' summing up, he's playing the long game, the important point was not that he held up the identical law that he voted against previously, but that he still accepted the concept that there was nothing wrong with the idea that individual states can use phoney health reasons and that the Supreme Court still has much leeway in deciding what actually constitutes 'undue burden'. It's the long game and his legacy that he has one eye on. By sending a virtually identical law to the Supreme Court it was a challenge he could not accept. However he made it quite clear that he's not going to second guess what a State considers to be a 'health law' even if it has no practical purpose. That is the real take home message.

More important is Gorsuch's leading opinion on the LGBT workplace law because now the Christian fundamentalists who wish to impose their religious beliefs on the general population have to wonder what they got out of backing the immoral Trump who appointed Gorsuch and is supposed to be one of their own. They made a deal with the devil but it was all for nought so far.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by Eegore on 07/10/20 at 20:56:00

"However he made it quite clear that he's not going to second guess what a State considers to be a 'health law' even if it has no practical purpose. That is the real take home message."

I do agree with that.

"More important is Gorsuch's leading opinion on the LGBT workplace law"

This is also an example of putting law over opinion or affiliation. I also feel it has substantial impact.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by eau de sauvage on 07/10/20 at 21:59:41

This is also an example of putting law over opinion or affiliation.

This is what I meant about the 'long game'. It's too obviously political to overturn precedent set so recently. Not that that bothered all the conservative Judges. However Kavanaugh has already indicated a willingness to overturn precedent that he feels was wrongly decided. If Trump has another go, then Roe vs Wade is toast as it stands though it's pretty well safe with Kennedy but he's happy to chip away at it when he can do so without looking like a complete hypocrite. Which is after all their forte, the conservative Judges have an uncanny ability to undo precedent with their sophistry.

A strange irony for the Christians who want to introduce laws that make abortion more difficult or expensive or both, means that it disadvantages Black people into having unwanted pregnancies and this further tips the balance against the white population. Maybe they reckon they can cull the blacks and people of colour using health care as a weapon against them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-cites-roe-v-wade-in-opinion-explaining-when-to-overturn-erroneous-precedents

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/20 at 05:46:18

introduce laws that make abortion more difficult or expensive or both, means that it disadvantages Black people into having unwanted pregnancies and this further tips the balance against the white population.

So the ideals behind the founder of Planned Parenthood is well known and understood.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/20 at 05:51:24

Latin: "to stand by things decided"

That is the doctrine for US Court precedent.

The latest Supreme Court decision regarding an abortion law / change is important, but not because of the result of the decision alone.

All well and good Eegore but obviously laws have to overturned or we would never evolve. Abortion has been a flash point ever since enacted. The original guidelines for abortion have been trampled with no thought of precedent. I favor a state by state solution. Besides, it would help to further divide the USA which may be our only hope for survival at this point.

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/20 at 08:03:59

I wonder why white people arent suffering from those numbers of
unwanted pregnancies..

Title: Re: Stare Decisis
Post by Eegore on 07/11/20 at 14:46:14

"All well and good Eegore but obviously laws have to overturned or we would never evolve."

I agree.

I am not really addressing the specific law as much as I am addressing the procedure. This Justice was expected to agree with the Louisiana law based off of political affiliation but instead chose to use legal precedent because the law was essentially identical to one that was shut-down. This is his job, to interpret law, not bow to affiliation or funding.

Overturn the law, but overturn it in accordance to legal structure.

"So the ideals behind the founder of Planned Parenthood is well known and understood. "

I don't think they are. Almost all of the information I've seen lately are completely out of context or blatant lies.

Below is an example:

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1592484486