Mortkat wrote:You are correct, Debra Law. That will teach me to try to debate with a legal genius.
Yes. I am right. But let's look at the SUBSTANCE of your posting discrepancy in depth.
First, you said that Roberts and Alito would likely respect precedent -- Roe v. Wade (and ostensibly its progeny) -- as
stare decisis.
You said:
Mortkat wrote:Judge Roberts has signaled that he considers Roe vs. Wade as Stare Decisis. I am sure that Judge Alito will consider it similarly.
Here's the link in case you forgot what you said and would like to verify:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1685268#1685268
Then you said:
Mortkat wrote:What will happen is that Roe vs. Wade, now that these two judges have joined the Supreme Court will be stripped bare so that it has virtually no power. Most of the states will gear up to pass laws against "partial-birth abortion" and legislation concerning the rights of parents to be notified before minor daughters receive abortions. The USSC, as presently constituted, will turn away any challenges to these state initiatives
.
Ho hum. Been there, done that. There is no doubt that the conservative movement will regulate abortion to the nth degree. But it seems to have escaped your base of knowledge that the issues you recited have been decided. Therefore, so long as the lower courts apply precedent, it isn't likely that these same issues will be heard by Supreme Court (as presently constituted or otherwise).
Then you said:
Mortkat wrote:But, Debra Law, if I am on these threads when the USSC rejects a challenge to a state law regarding the blocking of "partial Birth abortion" or to the right of parents to be informed that their minor daughter is seeking an abortion, I will be sure to let you know.
Then, you may wish to review your position
WHATEVER. ROFL.
When the "legal genius" (Debra_Law) pointed out something that you had overlooked . . . that the Supreme Court had already decided these issues and established precedent for the lower courts to follow . . . your
vision of a newly-constituted Court avoiding these particular issues by refusing to hear these cases and allowing the states to oppress liberty and allowing Roe v. Wade to be "stripped bare" was demolished.
You changed your tune. Instead of refusing to hear these cases, now you assert the Court "will be forced to revisit the partial birth abortion issue."
Here's the link in case you forgot what you said:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1685646#1685646
Well?
Your entire theory was that Roberts and Alito would adhere to
stare decisis, but the newly-constituted Court would masterfully avoid that obligation to adhere to
stare decisis by refusing to hear cases that would arise after the states have gorged themselves passing anti-abortion regulations in eager anticipation that the Roberts' Court would turn a blind eye. You happily offered to inform us every time the court denied certiorari ("turned away" cases). But, you didn't realize that Supreme Court precedent already existed for the lower courts to follow on the issues of "partial-birth abortion" and parental notification.
Now that you know about this existing precedent, you have changed your mind: the Court will now be "forced" to "revisit" these issues--(and now, instead of happily offering to inform us every time the court "turns away" these cases, you happily offer to inform us every time the court accepts one of these cases to "revisit" these issues). But what is your CURRENT position on Roberts and Alito following established precedent?
Will Roberts and Alito adhere to stare decisis when they are "forced" to "revisit" these issues? You thought they would before . . . what's your position now?
Just a reminder:
Mortkat wrote:Judge Roberts has signaled that he considers Roe vs. Wade as Stare Decisis. I am sure that Judge Alito will consider it similarly.
Mortkat wrote:But, as a legal genius, it should be easy for you to destroy my argument in the post where I referenced Edward Lazarus. You do know who he is, don't you, Debra LAW?
OMG? Who is Edward Lazarus? Maybe you told us:
Mortkat wrote:I am sure that the USSC will be forced to revisit the partial birth abortion issue. I will inform you when it does. And as for the "revisit"issue, Howard Lazarus writes in "Closed Chambers"( He was a clerk for Blackmun) that. . .
Let me guess . . . he's was a clerk for Blackmun?
Was he the person who, according to you, is of the opinion that "THE ROE BASED RIGHT WILL STAND, BUT IT WILL HAVE NO HEIRS" based on his reading of a 1997 physician-assisted suicide case?
If I'm wrong . . . let me know. I'm just going by what you said previously.
With respect to the "partial birth abortion" decision as progeny of Roe and Lazarus's assessment that the Roe right will stand, he is probably correct.
With respect to the Lazarus analysis you provided concerning the "have no heirs" statement based on his reading of the physician-assisted suicide case, I believe he might have misread the decision. The Court issued a ruling on an extremely narrow issue and I don't think it has the broad sweep that Lazarus seemed to imply. However, I don't have the benefit of reading Lazarus's statement within its entire context because you didn't provide a link.
You read the physician-assisted suicide case so you will know what we're actually talking about, provide a link to Lazarus's full statement so I may investigate further, and we can discuss it in greater detail at a later time.
WASHINGTON et al. v. GLUCKSBERG et al.
