Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning 
Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.
Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time. |
Oh i see. So it’s ok to turn precedence on its head via constitutional amendment,but it’s wrong for some reason to pursue it in the courts.
We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.
If the founding fathers intended for precedent to be unassailable in the courts, they would have designed it to be such. They didn’t.
It’s moot, because neither one of us sees it being overturned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode