3 ms·

There should be a new game where we see how quickly someone will bring up Roe whenever SCOTUS is mentioned even if it’s completely irrelevant. My new fun game

by taxyz 4y ago

There should be a new game where we see how quickly someone will bring up Roe whenever SCOTUS is mentioned even if it’s completely irrelevant. My new fun game aside, you might be confusing 2 different concepts: some form of legal/judicial precedent and stare decisis. Since SCOTUS didn’t take the case and rule on it, they did not establish some sort of precedent, so presumably, the plaintiffs are free to petition the court again over this same matter and with different arguments or a different set of justices they may have their day in court and may or may not prevail. The second concept - stare decisis - seems to be more what you’re getting at where you don’t think the court should be able to revisit issues it’s already decided on and if that’s the case you would end up having to champion some really shitty decisions like Plessy.

avmich 4y ago
> There should be a new game where we see how quickly someone will bring up Roe whenever SCOTUS is mentioned even if it’s completely irrelevant. It would be a rather sad game. SCOTUS is supposed to be an institution with some features, and for long time many assumed those features were such that this reversal would be nearly impossible, not the way it was done. The reason Roe comes to mind is because Roe reversal puts the whole idea of SCOTUS in doubt, in a way that's worrisome for the court's purpose. And if the whole idea is in doubt - why we should worry what SCOTUS does in other areas? The idea is broken, and it's now not a meaningful mechanism - unless another idea will underlie it - but a kind of uncontrollable force. > Since SCOTUS didn’t take the case and rule on it, they did not establish some sort of precedent That could be true if it would be a freshly taken case, not the case from the lower court. In the latter case the precedent is whichever decision SCOTUS implicitly agreed with. Jurisprudence should be - and the real one is - simple, otherwise people cannot take it into account to make decisions. > so presumably, the plaintiffs are free to petition the court again over this same matter and with different arguments "different arguments" can well make it a different case. > or a different set of justices they may have their day in court and may or may not prevail That's court shopping - it should be a different jurisdiction for it to be rational. > where you don’t think the court should be able to revisit issues it’s already decided on The problem is not that court can't re-decide - Congress famously admitted an error with Prohibition amendment - but that after some period of time re-decision is not enough. There should be reasons other than change of opinion.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by taxyz 4y ago

avmich 4y ago

> There should be a new game where we see how quickly someone will bring up Roe whenever SCOTUS is mentioned even if it’s completely irrelevant. It would be a rather sad game. SCOTUS is supposed to be an institution with some features, and for long time many assumed those features were such that this reversal would be nearly impossible, not the way it was done. The reason Roe comes to mind is because Roe reversal puts the whole idea of SCOTUS in doubt, in a way that's worrisome for the court's purpose. And if the whole idea is in doubt - why we should worry what SCOTUS does in other areas? The idea is broken, and it's now not a meaningful mechanism - unless another idea will underlie it - but a kind of uncontrollable force. > Since SCOTUS didn’t take the case and rule on it, they did not establish some sort of precedent That could be true if it would be a freshly taken case, not the case from the lower court. In the latter case the precedent is whichever decision SCOTUS implicitly agreed with. Jurisprudence should be - and the real one is - simple, otherwise people cannot take it into account to make decisions. > so presumably, the plaintiffs are free to petition the court again over this same matter and with different arguments "different arguments" can well make it a different case. > or a different set of justices they may have their day in court and may or may not prevail That's court shopping - it should be a different jurisdiction for it to be rational. > where you don’t think the court should be able to revisit issues it’s already decided on The problem is not that court can't re-decide - Congress famously admitted an error with Prohibition amendment - but that after some period of time re-decision is not enough. There should be reasons other than change of opinion.

puffoflogic 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html