Chocolate Jesus

Remove all ads!

Well, it's not quite that simple. Once the SC rules on an issue, it's not like a new SC can just say that they're going back with the old way. They must prove that the initial ruling was WRONG, or due to new laws or constitutional amendments it became wrong since the last time the SC heard the case. Therefore, even if you had 9 SC justices, all of whom were opposed to abortion, in order to repeal Roe v. Wade, they would need to show what flaws were used in the initial reasoning, and a religious motive wouldn't count as a flaw.

To put in another way, it's much easier for the SC to rule on a previously-undecided issue than to rewrite a law that has already been previously ruled on.

 

Aldeth,
I understand that. I agree that the supreme court would have to go to greater length, and of course need a case.

What I have in mind is the spread of a particular legal school, people like Alberto Gonzales, who can't find the right of habeas corpus being granted in the bill of rights in a literal reading, probably in agreement with Judge Scalia's view that only a textualist approach to interpretation will ensure the rule of law. If you're just brazen enough you can make some really outrageous arguments strictly to the letter of the law.

I am confident that a good lawyer can make an argument that the verdict then was wrong, if the popularity of the theme 'why Roe vs. Wade was decided wrong' in US legali literature is any indication. He might even find the argument on the shelf.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the Supreme Court one day overturns Roe Vs. Wade, doesn't that just mean it is up to the states to pass there own laws? I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to pass a national law banning something.

 

But that is basically what Roe v. Wade did... Any state that had a law banning abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy was null and void after the SC ruling. Now I do agree in principle that if the SC ruled that it was OK to disallow abortions, it would still be up to the states to enact specific laws. However, I do think that rulings by the SC can change existing state laws, as they have in the past. For a more recent example, last year the SC ruled that anyone committing a capital crime prior to the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the death penalty. Anyone currently on death row due to a crime committed before they were 18 had their sentences instantly commuted to life in prison.

 

Huh...that didn't take long.

Y'ever heard of the saying: "Every website is only three links away from a lesbian chat room."?

I'm thinking we could coin a new aphorism: "Every thread in the Alleys is only two pages away from an abortion debate."

Let's get back to the confectioner's idol?

(I for one would like to see more silliness in this thread! )

 

Agreed: Now let's get to what's really important!

What happenned to all that chocolate!

 

Mmmmm... Chocolate!

 

No, but he died with them exposed... as did everyone the Romans crucified.

 

And seriously what's so terrible about genitalia? Every single human has them. Even Jesus had them.

 

I bet it was too great a temptation for those giving up chocalate during Lent.

 

Man, that give me a really...well, quirky, idea - break down the statue (if it remains palatable, as Rally warned) and consecrate the pieces for use as part of Easter Mass...body of Christ, anyone?

Hey, "Waste not, want not."