LogFAQs > #964932950

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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.

In that case, however, there wasn't established precedent. In doing so, they established a precedent upon which all relevant laws have been based since then. Changing that precedent needs to entail coming up with a reason why it should be changed.

Arbitrary decisions should only be made when there's no basis available for making more justified decisions. Ignoring an existing basis and deciding something arbitrarily (especially when that existing basis strongly supports making a different decision) is a really bad idea and sets a rather dangerous precedent for inconsistently applying the law.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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.

This, however, is true. It should have been codified into law decades ago, rather than leaning so heavily on a pretty flimsy legal precedent and the hope that the Supreme Court would be reasonable enoguh not to arbitrarily overturn it. The Supreme Court arbitrarily overturning things based on personal/political whims is still a very significant problem, but a lot of that can be mitigated by establishing formal laws based on established precedent so there's something more concrete that needs to be challenged before overturning that precedent.