3 ms·

I also think it is reasonable - however - what the SC has done is throw out precedent here - there is a tremendous amount of "law" that has not been codified by

I also think it is reasonable - however - what the SC has done is throw out precedent here - there is a tremendous amount of "law" that has not been codified by the constitution or by congress, but instead relies on decades and decades of cases that have come before the supreme court. So in this instance they have specifically decided that these previous decisions were wrong and reversed it. I believe this was done selectively and purposefully.

anon291 4y ago
The supreme court should throw out bad precedent. Court precedent that's bad is the worst because no one can overturn it.
btilly 4y ago
But that ISN'T what the Supreme Court did. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32143004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32143004 for my description of what they actually decided. That said, your precedent point is important. See page 119 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf for Thomas' concurrence where he says that Supreme Court decisions supporting access to contraception for married couples, for couples to engage in consensual sexual acts (specifically sodomy), and a right to gay marriage. Abortion rights do not fall by themselves. They are part of a web of related rights that will rise and now probably fall in conjunction.