The Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent on Monday in a split 5-4 ruling that legal experts said did not bode well for the future of other well established cases like Roe v. Wade.
In the past year, at least 15 states have introduced legislation to seriously limit abortion access. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed one of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills in the country, which bans the procedure after a fetal heartbeat is detected. A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant.
The decision drew notable criticism from the other side of the bench, with Justice Stephen Breyer warning in a dissent that the move “can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.” Though Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe argued that while Breyer was right to challenge the majority’s reasoning in this decision, he wouldn’t “lightly assume that the chief justice, for instance, would be as willing to overrule the abortion precedents as he was willing to upend the interstate sovereign immunity precedent set by Nevada v. Hall.”
“Especially noteworthy about the decision today was the majority’s explicit concession that its new ruling was based on nothing in the Constitution’s text but on general inferences from the constitutional design, structure and history,” Tribe said.
Justice Thomas argued that Nevada v. Hall “is contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the states that ratified the Constitution. Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent.”
The Supreme Court ‘broke with the long-standing 1979 decision in Nevada v. Hall permitting a sovereign state to be sued in another state’s courts without consent.’
thomaskaine5 “The doctrine of stare decisis is that there is a strong presumption against overturning SC decisions. In practice, cases are usually only overruled if there are significant factual changes, or if there is proof that the ruling had become unworkable.” Wouldn’t work for RvW then.
thomaskaine5 When trump is impeached, so should be his justices
Precedent is a big word these days. Pundits & politicians always look for new buzz words to get people’s attention. Meanwhile, I’m voting to continue Trump’s unbelievable progress. Made in the USA forever & ever. Who’s with me?
I love the reaching leftists and the fake news media are doing to create this fear mongering among people. Everything is painted with a divisive brush. Case is overturned, so-called experts and liberals... 'omg! Roe v. Wade is next!!!'
Just as what is considered normal behavior in California may be deemed deviant behavior in The heartland. The same goes for the law - that’s why we have the electoral college and states rights. That’s why we have a supreme court. 🏛
Makes me giddy for more SCOTUS rulings during the next 2 weeks!
There is no such thing as settled law with the SCOTUS. Who fed you this load of crap? Oh, all those weasel Senators who approved Trump appointments.
Live and let live. Respect the choices women make.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »