So my question about abortion and the supreme

[TheSiege]

so roe vs wade was decided on a long time ago.
why can it be brought back up to be over turned?
it seems like that is what everyone is worried about.
doesnt it make any decision the supreme court make useless
if it can be brought back up later?

 

[Aisengard]

No, it doesn't, because the judicial system doesn't work like that.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
so roe vs wade was decided on a long time ago.
why can it be brought back up to be over turned?
it seems like that is what everyone is worried about.
doesnt it make any decision the supreme court make useless
if it can be brought back up later?

I can remember when you had to be 21 to drink in my state. Then with all the boys getting killed in or fighting in Vietnam who weren't even old enough to have a drink in the bar when they were home on leave they decided to lower it to 18. Now it's 21 again.

The law isn't sacred, it's just a tool in the hands of men who like to talk alot and act important. 🙂

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
so roe vs wade was decided on a long time ago.
why can it be brought back up to be over turned?
it seems like that is what everyone is worried about.
doesnt it make any decision the supreme court make useless
if it can be brought back up later?

Sometimes after further review and study SC decisions are found to be incorrect. Dred Scott is a perfect example. There have been many others as well.

If the SC wasn't capable of correcting a wrong decision by a previous SC what good are they? Justices are only human. Sometimes they make bad decisions. Should we be forced to live with those bad decisions forever? Or should we be allowed to step back and take another look?

 

[TheSiege]

i understand that, but i thought the supreme court was like an end all say all to arguements when there have decisions made in the past, it just seems like a waste to bring up old issues that have already been decided on, and a waste of money especailly when society hasnt changed enough to warrant such a thing, maybe when capital punishment is ended then we should look at abortion ending? just a thought im not trying to argue

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can remember when you had to be 21 to drink in my state. Then with all the boys getting killed in or fighting in Vietnam who weren't even old enough to have a drink in the bar when they were home on leave they decided to lower it to 18. Now it's 21 again.

the federal law, at least as far as I know, still has 18 as the legal drinking age.

but congress denies highway funding or something to states with a legal drinking age under 21, so every state was thereby forced to raise it or lose money.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can remember when you had to be 21 to drink in my state. Then with all the boys getting killed in or fighting in Vietnam who weren't even old enough to have a drink in the bar when they were home on leave they decided to lower it to 18. Now it's 21 again.

the federal law, at least as far as I know, still has 18 as the legal drinking age.

but congress denies highway funding or something to states with a legal drinking age under 21, so every state was thereby forced to raise it or lose money.

That may be wqhy they changed it? I can't remember. I do know they hold your highway funds if you don't comply with there DUI reccomendations.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can remember when you had to be 21 to drink in my state. Then with all the boys getting killed in or fighting in Vietnam who weren't even old enough to have a drink in the bar when they were home on leave they decided to lower it to 18. Now it's 21 again.

the federal law, at least as far as I know, still has 18 as the legal drinking age.

but congress denies highway funding or something to states with a legal drinking age under 21, so every state was thereby forced to raise it or lose money.

That may be wqhy they changed it? I can't remember. I do know they hold your highway funds if you don't comply with there DUI reccomendations.

yeah, it's kinda like stealth legislation 😛

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can remember when you had to be 21 to drink in my state. Then with all the boys getting killed in or fighting in Vietnam who weren't even old enough to have a drink in the bar when they were home on leave they decided to lower it to 18. Now it's 21 again.

the federal law, at least as far as I know, still has 18 as the legal drinking age.

but congress denies highway funding or something to states with a legal drinking age under 21, so every state was thereby forced to raise it or lose money.

That may be wqhy they changed it? I can't remember. I do know they hold your highway funds if you don't comply with there DUI reccomendations.

yeah, it's kinda like stealth legislation 😛

Well, at least our soilders can suck down a beer in the Iraqi heat. It's a "recuriting incentive". LOL

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
i understand that, but i thought the supreme court was like an end all say all to arguements when there have decisions made in the past, it just seems like a waste to bring up old issues that have already been decided on, and a waste of money especailly when society hasnt changed enough to warrant such a thing, maybe when capital punishment is ended then we should look at abortion ending? just a thought im not trying to argue

Technically the SC is the end all be all in judicial matters. But like I said before, if someone wants to bring the argument and the SC agrees to hear it there is nothing to prevent them from looking at current precident and making corrections to it if needed.

I understand what you are hinting at. Some issues are fairly non-controversial and some are Roe v Wade. Obviously Roe raises a lot of passion from both sides of the issue. But the court is required to be dispassionate and take each case on its merrits.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: TheSiege
i understand that, but i thought the supreme court was like an end all say all to arguements when there have decisions made in the past, it just seems like a waste to bring up old issues that have already been decided on, and a waste of money especailly when society hasnt changed enough to warrant such a thing, maybe when capital punishment is ended then we should look at abortion ending? just a thought im not trying to argue

Technically the SC is the end all be all in judicial matters. But like I said before, if someone wants to bring the argument and the SC agrees to hear it there is nothing to prevent them from looking at current precident and making corrections to it if needed.

I understand what you are hinting at. Some issues are fairly non-controversial and some are Roe v Wade. Obviously Roe raises a lot of passion from both sides of the issue. But the court is required to be dispassionate and take each case on its merrits.

I think of it this way, if a current SC did not have the power to rule against decisions made by previous SCs, the SC would have less and less power as time went by. Whatever decisions had been made, even if they were made hundreds of years ago, would bind the current court. That means that the current SC would NOT be the end all in judicial matters, only the first court would truly have that power.

A more obvious reason is that if we have a president and congress that allow the court to be packed with radicals (whether left or right), we would have no way to ever get out from under any decisions they make.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: TheSiege
i understand that, but i thought the supreme court was like an end all say all to arguements when there have decisions made in the past, it just seems like a waste to bring up old issues that have already been decided on, and a waste of money especailly when society hasnt changed enough to warrant such a thing, maybe when capital punishment is ended then we should look at abortion ending? just a thought im not trying to argue

Technically the SC is the end all be all in judicial matters. But like I said before, if someone wants to bring the argument and the SC agrees to hear it there is nothing to prevent them from looking at current precident and making corrections to it if needed.

I understand what you are hinting at. Some issues are fairly non-controversial and some are Roe v Wade. Obviously Roe raises a lot of passion from both sides of the issue. But the court is required to be dispassionate and take each case on its merrits.

I think of it this way, if a current SC did not have the power to rule against decisions made by previous SCs, the SC would have less and less power as time went by. Whatever decisions had been made, even if they were made hundreds of years ago, would bind the current court. That means that the current SC would NOT be the end all in judicial matters, only the first court would truly have that power.

A more obvious reason is that if we have a president and congress that allow the court to be packed with radicals (whether left or right), we would have no way to ever get out from under any decisions they make.

Well said.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
i understand that, but i thought the supreme court was like an end all say all to arguements when there have decisions made in the past, it just seems like a waste to bring up old issues that have already been decided on, and a waste of money especailly when society hasnt changed enough to warrant such a thing, maybe when capital punishment is ended then we should look at abortion ending? just a thought im not trying to argue

Slavery was decided on. Why bring it up again?

 

[Queasy]

Even if the SC does overturn Roe vs Wade, that won't make abortion illegal. It will just result in individual states writing legislation to determine whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal. That's the way it was going prior to Roe vs Wade anyways if I recall correctly.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Even if the SC does overturn Roe vs Wade, that won't make abortion illegal. It will just result in individual states writing legislation to determine whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal. That's the way it was going prior to Roe vs Wade anyways if I recall correctly.

You are correct. The issue will revert to the states. The sad thing is that more and more states are already introducing restrictions on abortions to make it more difficult because they cannot go against federal law as it stands today.

 

[diapickle]

the case itself doesn't get overturned; the issue does, when it comes up in new cases.

 

[LunarRay]

All of our government entities mirror the society but do so with a certain lag. The Executive is quickest to react then the Congress and finally years later the Supreme Court. But, the Court is only to rule on the law not create it. It has ruled on the law already and that is settled law. The courts below are required to follow this 'opinion' and unless a case substantially different tests the law it will not be given writ. (IMO)