3 ms·
> You can't retain something you don't have. One SCOTUS said you do have it. One says you don't. Who's right? Not that it matters. Like I said, it's on Congre
by falcolas 4y ago
> You can't retain something you don't have.
One SCOTUS said you do have it. One says you don't. Who's right?
Not that it matters. Like I said, it's on Congress now.
> footnote
And the decision was still with the SCOTUS, footnote or no footnote. Regardless of what the lawyers say, it's ultimately up to the judges to determine what's an appropriate response to their arguments.
If every footnote begging for an overturning of precedent was taken to this extreme, we would see a lot more turnover. This sweeping and disruptive change is solely on the SCOTUS' heads.
- tablespoon 4y ago>> You can't retain something you don't have. Like I said above, the whole Ninth Amendment thing seems to be a red herring, since that apparently wasn't even cited part of Roe v. Wade's reasoning. It apparently actually relied on the "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" instead. > One SCOTUS said you do have it. One says you don't. Who's right? The one that doesn't make major policy decisions decree by turning its opinions backdoor constitutional amendments, which is what the Roe court did. IMHO, it's antithetical to democracy for a council of nine unelected people to make major, near-unchallengable decisions by edict. Also, to argue equivalence between making such an edict and its later repeal is even more undemocratic. > And the decision was still with the SCOTUS, footnote or no footnote. Why are you focusing on that footnote? The parties make arguments after their petitions, and I said that was when the court was asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. Did you stop reading after the first sentence of the quote?