Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
- Apr 1, 2007
- None. on/ga/njegov
That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?And how long did that majority last?Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.So...
For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?