4 ms·
>To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. Interesti
by SmokeyHamster 6y ago
>To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.
Interesting logic. Now do Roe v Wade. Are they going to overturn that too because it allows the injustice of the murder of millions of unborn Americans? Probably not. Funny how Stare Decisis goes out the window when it's an issue the justices care about, yet conveniently reapply it when present day utility outweighs historical injustice.
- georgestephanis 6y agoYou're using the same word -- Justice -- to mean two things. The court means justice as a violation of the law. You mean it as a violation of your opinion of what is right and wrong. Whether your like it or not, Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton are the settled court cases, and legal justice is what flows from that. Calling what is legal "unjust" because you disagree with it further reinforces the need for this decision.