Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
Please review your American history book on the pages that refer to Marbury v Madison and the precedent of judicial review. You really don't know a whole lot about our judicial system and things like stari decisis.
|
Nor do you, if you're citing
stari decisis in relation to the Constitution as if precedent were the end all, be all of Constitutional Law.
Stare decisis holds some weight in the Courts, but is not EVER intended to supercede a judge's ability to interpret the law, most especially the Constitution.
That was the original post: There are no abortion rights in the Constitution.
Quote:
|
Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause. Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
|
Also, keep in mind the translation of the actual
entire phrase
stare decisis et non quieta movere:
"stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet".
What century are you living in that the abortion issue is quiet, and should be left sleeping?