LogFAQs > #964932213

adjl posted...

hat's what his next paragraph covers. Precedent doesn't need to be absolutely sacrosanct, but if the beliefs of the past need to be replaced by the beliefs of today, that replacement should follow a far more rigorous process than "the justices in today's court don't like it so too bad." This is a decision that is not grounded in any more robust judicial reasoning than any of the countless other failed challenges to the ruling, nor does it reflect the will of the American people as a whole. It's a largely arbitrary decision to overturn an extremely significant piece of legal precedent, which I strongly suspect is being done purely for the sake of trying to win over the anti-abortion voters that want the Republican party to overturn it (which is a blatant display of partisanship from what is supposed to be a non-partisan entity).

Roe V Wade was also "the justices in today's court don't like it so too bad." so this decision is just as valid as the last one. Liking the decision they made before doesn't make it more valid than a decision now. If anything, this just reinforces the need to do these things in the first place. This was always a vulnerability, and complacency lead to it staying at risk.

It seems ridiculous to cry about a problem that always existed only after it comes to fruition, like crying your family member died in a car crash because of no seat belt but you said nothing for the years prior when they still weren't doing it.