3 ms·

The judicial branch already disregarded the process. See the current court's use of the shadow docket, and hell, _this decision_ itself.

refurb 5y ago
This decision is disregarding what process? This is the power vested in the Supreme Court. Edit: No, no law is “settled” and impossible to overturn. The comment said “casually overturned”, not “never overturned”. It’s how it’s supposed to work You don’t get to pick and choose what decisions you like and then attack the ones you don’t. If you do you undermine the decisions you don’t agree with AND the ones you do.” And again, there is nothing stopping Congress from turning around and passing a new abortion law that maintains the status quo. It may not be perfect but if you don’t respect the process then you might as well throw the whole system out the window.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > This decision is disregarding what process? Stare decisis, aka precedent. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-law-justices-earlier-assurances-now-in-doubt https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-la... "During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was 'settled law,' calling the court cases affirming it 'precedent on precedent' that could not be casually overturned."
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    There is precedent for overturning precedent. Stare decisis is not supposed to mean that a decision is set in stone for eternity.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Certainly, but one of the deciding votes here won their seat very recently claiming precedent in this specific case made it settled law. That appears to have been a lie.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        That is very much not what he claimed. We also don't yet know how he voted.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abort... > A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-susan-collins-790632 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-ro... > “We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law,” Collins told reporters. “He said that he agreed with what [Chief] Justice [John] Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law.” Lisa Murkowski now openly claims to have been misled by the nominees, as well. https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/1521522918198591488 https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/152152291819859148...
  - sjg007 5y ago
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I have no problem with someone taking issue with a specific instance of overturning precedent, or the logic used to do so. But I don't think it's correct to say this never happens or ignores the process. We could look to a myriad of rulings related to slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc in which courts previously ruled on flawed precedent that was later overturned (although many bills were also used to help those changes along). It's rare, but it's a type of action that still exists within the overall legal process. I didn't realize the court held constitutional decisions as easier to overturn than statutory ones. https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned-precedent-dozens-of-times-in-the-past-60-years-including-when-it-struck-down-legal-segregation-168052 https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned...
  - xeromal 5y ago
    There was also precedent for defending slavery, women's right to vote, and other things but that didn't stop us from progressing or degressing(?) depending on what side you're on.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      You really needed to preserve your neutrality for the pro-slavery, anti-suffragette crowd? There is such a thing as having too open of a mind. > degressing(?) regressing ("deteriorating" or "degenerating" could also work)
- kadoban 5y ago
  > You don’t get to pick and choose what decisions you like and then attack the ones you don’t. Sure I do. This one hurts people and is being decided by a broken court, formed by illigitimate means.
- kadoban 5y ago
  > And again, there is nothing stopping Congress from turning around and passing a new abortion law that maintains the status quo. Nothing except Congress being useless. When empty land gets to vote, and half of it votes against functioning government, unsurprisingly nothing gets done.

refurb 5y ago

This decision is disregarding what process? This is the power vested in the Supreme Court. Edit: No, no law is “settled” and impossible to overturn. The comment said “casually overturned”, not “never overturned”. It’s how it’s supposed to work You don’t get to pick and choose what decisions you like and then attack the ones you don’t. If you do you undermine the decisions you don’t agree with AND the ones you do.” And again, there is nothing stopping Congress from turning around and passing a new abortion law that maintains the status quo. It may not be perfect but if you don’t respect the process then you might as well throw the whole system out the window.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> This decision is disregarding what process? Stare decisis, aka precedent. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-law-justices-earlier-assurances-now-in-doubt https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-la... "During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was 'settled law,' calling the court cases affirming it 'precedent on precedent' that could not be casually overturned."
- zdragnar 5y ago
  There is precedent for overturning precedent. Stare decisis is not supposed to mean that a decision is set in stone for eternity.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Certainly, but one of the deciding votes here won their seat very recently claiming precedent in this specific case made it settled law. That appears to have been a lie.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      That is very much not what he claimed. We also don't yet know how he voted.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abort... > A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-susan-collins-790632 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-ro... > “We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law,” Collins told reporters. “He said that he agreed with what [Chief] Justice [John] Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law.” Lisa Murkowski now openly claims to have been misled by the nominees, as well. https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/1521522918198591488 https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/152152291819859148...
- sjg007 5y ago
- giantg2 5y ago
  I have no problem with someone taking issue with a specific instance of overturning precedent, or the logic used to do so. But I don't think it's correct to say this never happens or ignores the process. We could look to a myriad of rulings related to slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc in which courts previously ruled on flawed precedent that was later overturned (although many bills were also used to help those changes along). It's rare, but it's a type of action that still exists within the overall legal process. I didn't realize the court held constitutional decisions as easier to overturn than statutory ones. https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned-precedent-dozens-of-times-in-the-past-60-years-including-when-it-struck-down-legal-segregation-168052 https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned...
- xeromal 5y ago
  There was also precedent for defending slavery, women's right to vote, and other things but that didn't stop us from progressing or degressing(?) depending on what side you're on.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    You really needed to preserve your neutrality for the pro-slavery, anti-suffragette crowd? There is such a thing as having too open of a mind. > degressing(?) regressing ("deteriorating" or "degenerating" could also work)
kadoban 5y ago
> You don’t get to pick and choose what decisions you like and then attack the ones you don’t. Sure I do. This one hurts people and is being decided by a broken court, formed by illigitimate means.
kadoban 5y ago
> And again, there is nothing stopping Congress from turning around and passing a new abortion law that maintains the status quo. Nothing except Congress being useless. When empty land gets to vote, and half of it votes against functioning government, unsurprisingly nothing gets done.