Trump 2025

Quote: AZDuffman

I do not have formal legal training.

Maybe you're too fucking stupid to get into law school? That would be my bet.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Maybe you're too fucking stupid to get into law school? That would be my bet.

I saw somewhere on here that someone said "a straight man will not go for kids", how about a straight man that doesn't like women???

Quote: sonotawhale

I saw somewhere on here that someone said "a straight man will not go for kids", how about a straight man that doesn't like women???

Or how about a straight man who prefers to sleep with hordes of cats instead of his wife?

Quote: GenoDRPh

Maybe you're too fucking stupid to get into law school? That would be my bet.

More like I am smart enough not to go and spend $100,000 to get a degree in an oversaturated profession.

Quote: missedhervee

Two words: "stare decisis."

One word: "precedent."

I'll admit my grasp of the workings of the USSC is weak, given we paid scant attention to that issue in law school, and it never came up in my 40 years of practice: it's a political as opposed to a legal issue so far as I am concerned, and politics doesn't really concern me that much.

Well, your understanding is indeed weak. SCOUTS *SETS* the precedents. When they see that a previous precedent is or has become incorrect, then they make a new one. This is what they did in Brown v Board of Education where they killed Separate But Equal and what they did when they overturned Roe.

It does not happen often, but it happens. So, understand, when you run your mouth that Roe "can't be overturned because of stare decisis" you are saying we should not have gotten rid of Separate But Equal for the same reason.

Quote: missedhervee

Or how about a straight man who prefers to sleep with hordes of cats instead of his wife?

Can you imagine the stench emanating from the house and bedroom? Is it any wonder the wife left the male "cat lady"? I suspect mental illness.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, your understanding is indeed weak. SCOUTS *SETS* the precedents. When they see that a previous precedent is or has become incorrect, then they make a new one. This is what they did in Brown v Board of Education where they killed Separate But Equal and what they did when they overturned Roe.

It does not happen often, but it happens. So, understand, when you run your mouth that Roe "can't be overturned because of stare decisis" you are saying we should not have gotten rid of Separate But Equal for the same reason.

No, my "understanding" seems to be spot on.

In law school we were told that courts follow precedent.

We were not then told, and I only figured out later, that following precedent applies to LEGAL, not POLITICAL issues; political issues are up to the whim of whomever wields the gavel when the case comes before them.

A disappointing discovery.

Quote: missedhervee

No, my "understanding" seems to be spot on.

In law school we were told that courts follow precedent.

We were not then told, and I only figured out later, that following precedent applies to LEGAL, not POLITICAL issues; political issues are up to the whim of whomever wields the gavel when the case comes before them.

A disappointing discovery.

In some cases you are correct. Gay marriage for example was decided on political reasoning.

But you can’t seem to get it thru your head that SCOUTS *SETS* precedents that the other courts follow.

Or do you actually believe Brown v Board of Education was faulty because it ignored precedent?

Quote: AZDuffman

Or do you actually believe Brown v Board of Education was faulty because it ignored precedent?

That case is an aberration, it seems to me, as the issue involved, segregation / separate but equal, had been CULTURAL, not simply political, and was a keystone to the American Way, i.e. it was "bigger than politics," precedent notwithstanding.

That's an inartful way of saying that the court had to get proactive in order to force Americans to accept desegregation, a principle patently unfair and indefensible on its face.

But yeah, the USSC did not follow precedent: they made "new law," but that should only happen in rare circumstances.

Quote: missedhervee

That case is an aberration, it seems to me, as the issue involved, segregation / separate but equal, had been CULTURAL, not simply political, and was a keystone to the American Way, i.e. it was "bigger than politics," precedent notwithstanding.

That's an inartful way of saying that the court had to get proactive in order to force Americans to accept desegregation, a principle patently unfair and indefensible on its face.

But yeah, the USSC did not follow precedent: they made "new law," but that should only happen in rare circumstances.

It is rare. And perhaps saying you do not have a right to rip a baby to shreds is also bigger than politics?