Libs fret over Roe v Wade , but want Citizens United precedent tossed
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roe v Wade is a decision that benefits individuals across all socioeconomic boundaries.
Citizens United benefits corporations and wealthy lobbying interests at the expense of the public.
The question becomes:
Should the court act in favor of the citizenry or special interests?
One more case of, "If you don't like the law, change it." If the law is the constitution, change it. It's difficult but not impossible. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since it was adopted.
“Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal views about precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the job of a good judge,” Gorsuch said amid questioning from committee chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa.)
Kavanaugh, while saying "As a general proposition I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade," may seek to restrict it further.
I never said it would be retained without a single modification. But I don't foresee an all out ban as many on here would hope.
“Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal views about precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the job of a good judge,” Gorsuch said amid questioning from committee chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa.)
Kavanaugh, while saying "As a general proposition I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade," may seek to restrict it further.
I never said it would be retained without a single modification. But I don't foresee an all out ban as many on here would hope.
No ban is proposed. Even heartbeat restrictions are not a ban. In Roe v Wade, the SC in their opinion reinforced almost full bans were acceptable trimester 3, some restrictions trimester two.
and that was a liberal court in a liberal era, just years after Woodstock.
These laws added in 2019 will help SC define which amongst them are fully acceptable, and which are simply partially acceptable.
Key Kavanaugh word "general" before proposition = answer of Yes, BUT..
After Roe V. Wade, precedent will be a thing of the past. Of course there will be wins and losses on both sides and Citizens United would be as much at risk as anything else.
You keep citing to the extremely rare occasion of SCOTUS explicitly overturning a prior case. You do realize that this very rarely happens, right?
To say that “precedent is a thing of the past after Plessy” just shows your ignorance about this topic. If what you say is true, there would be no case citations within SCOTUS opinions since Plessy.
You keep citing to the extremely rare occasion of SCOTUS explicitly overturning a prior case. You do realize that this very rarely happens, right?
To say that “precedent is a thing of the past after Plessy” just shows your ignorance about this topic. If what you say is true, there would be no case citations within SCOTUS opinions since Plessy.
It proves precedents may be overturned. Now Roe v Wade is not being challenged-these fine, new laws simply add sensible restrictions, much of which was allowed in the written Roe ruling, btw, few seem aware of here.
Going to be an interesting year or two at the Supreme Court.
Is there a a correlation between a woman's womb and her right to choose and campaign finance laws that I am not getting? Duh!
The OP user is pointing out how a Democrat may be opposed to RvW getting overturned but not Citizens United, another SCOTUS-decided court case that set a lot of precedence.
I knew going into 2016, a Trump victory was most important to me, and our nation, based on 3 big issues: Illegal Aliens, Excessive Taxation, and not least by any means SCOTUS nominations.
Plessy vs Ferguson had its SC precedent invalidated by later SC courts. I hear no liberals moan about that. Libs want Citizen United precedent tossed.
Roe v Wade is simply one more precedent. Nothing any more, or any less, special about it, and certainly subject to all future courts interpretations as to whether the SC in 1973 ruled correctly, or in error.
Its going to be interesting in the months to come watching this fine court in action.
I will believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
If precedent cannot be overturned, you're incentivizing a race to establish precedent along partisan lines. That will lead to bad judgements.
Stare decisis is just a custom the courts follow to burnish their legitimacy and make the justice system appear systematic and impartial. Everyone knows the courts are political; how political they can and should be is up for debate.
But a policymaking body that cannot reverse previous policy is a nightmare. You could get stuck with terrible policy and not be able to reverse it. No one argues that Congress cannot repeal laws. Same goes for arguing that a constitutional amendment is the answer. That's a much higher bar to clear and would lead to an accumulation of precedents that cannot be reversed in practice.
We must be able to make and unmake policy using the same institution using the same rules. Otherwise the system is biased towards either accumulating policy or depleting it, rather than being neutral and thus responsive.
Another opinion which has no significance in the legal arena.
And, again, despite Rachel Madcow's snarky expression when talking about Citizens United and getting it all wrong, the decision set no precedent.
This is wrong. You don't have to take my word for it. Read the majority opinion, where Justice Kennedy explicitly stated that the Court was overruling existing precedent upholding limits on "electioneering communications":
Quote:
Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that “Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 490 (2007) (WRTL) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us.
If the Supreme Court rejects existing precedent in order to reach a decision, then it is... wait for it... creating new precedent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
