Thursday, April 19, 2007

How could she write that with a straight face?

Justice Ginsberg wrote this in the partial birth abortion case:
As the Court wrote in Casey, “overruling Roe’s central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under principles of stare decisis, but would seriously weaken the Court’s capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law.” 505 U. S., at 865. “[T]he very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable.” Id., at 854. See also id., at 867 (“[T]o overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”).

Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of “the rule of law” and the “principles of stare decisis.” ... A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power.

You gotta be kiddin' me.

The most liberal justice on the Court, comfortable with some of the most extraordinary precedent-shattering decisions imaginable, is trying to claim that precedents shouldn't be overturned. Dan gets it perfectly, "stare decisis is treated as a one-way street."

Liberal decisions which overturn conservative legal doctrines are good. Conservative decisions which overturn liberal legal doctrines are unconscionable. Brilliant!


Post a Comment

<< Home