Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
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
|
Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.
Threaded Mode