Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.
So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.
|
Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.
Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.
That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.
An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is
Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.
Hybrid Mode
