|
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
it won't be overturned ever |
| quote: | Originally posted by Reverend_Trance
I agree. It is too established and it has been on the books way too long.
Not a chance in hell. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I don't think the right to abortion is yet under any sort of threat. |
i wouldn't be so confident. look at the excerpts from transcripts. he's citing three different factors that could lead to overturning RvW.
1. the absence of settled expectations
2. the legitimacy of the court
3. whether a particular precedent is workable or not
4. whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.
number two is easy to meet. a more conservative court could conclude (out of thin air) that women don't have an expection or reliance on RvW and that RvW has not been workable. finally, a more conservative court could easily create those 'subsequent developments' in the next few years and revisit RvW afterwards.
the people that want RvW overturned are patient and will wait a little while if need be. remember, roberts has a chance of being in the SC for thirty years.
]NYT
| quote: | ROBERTS: Well, Senator, the importance of settled expectations in the application of stare decisis is a very important consideration. That was emphasized in the Casey opinion, but also in other opinions outside that area of the law. The principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors. Settled expectations is one of them, as you mentioned.
ROBERTS: Whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side -- whether the doctrinal bases of a decision had been eroded by subsequent developments. For example, if you have a case in which there are three precedents that lead and support that result and in the intervening period two of them have been overruled, that may be a basis for reconsidering the prior precedent.
...
ROBERTS: Well, I do think the considerations about the court's legitimacy are critically important. In other cases, my thinking of Payne v. Tennessee, for example, the court has focused on extensive disagreement as a grounds in favor of reconsideration. In Casey, the court looked at the disagreement as a factor in favor of reaffirming the decision. So it's a factor that is played different ways in different precedents of the court. I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough -- and the court has emphasized this on several occasions -- it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn't answer the question, it just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis.
|
to answer the initial question, no. i think people will be shocked tho because they don't see it coming.
___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum
My mixes:
Still up:1:2
Down:3:4:5
|
