Post by barb43 on May 15, 2019 13:49:14 GMT
The Supreme Court is smashing precedents. But Roe v. Wade might still be saved.
www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-smashing-precedents-roe-v-wade-might-still-be-ncna1005671
This is an interesting article that focuses on a dry, technical case that recently came before the Supreme Court for a new look.
The importance of the outcome is this:
The point that's being made: Long-established precedents are not entitled to any special respect. This could be a vital point in the overturning of Roe v Wade.
www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-smashing-precedents-roe-v-wade-might-still-be-ncna1005671
This is an interesting article that focuses on a dry, technical case that recently came before the Supreme Court for a new look.
The importance of the outcome is this:
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the court’s four other conservatives, wrote for the majority that Nevada v. Hall was wrongly decided and should thus be overruled.
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by the court’s three other liberals, dissented, voicing dismay that only a change of court personnel seemed to explain the change in result. He pointedly noted the danger of “overrul[ing] a decision only because five Members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by the court’s three other liberals, dissented, voicing dismay that only a change of court personnel seemed to explain the change in result. He pointedly noted the danger of “overrul[ing] a decision only because five Members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”
The point that's being made: Long-established precedents are not entitled to any special respect. This could be a vital point in the overturning of Roe v Wade.