Sure. When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” [0] But the prior decision was certainly workable, since it had been working for almost 50 years. And it certainly wasn’t too badly reasoned, since the same reasoning was applied to many other cases — situations which also were quite workable, since they were an expansion of rights, not a circumscription of them. If anything, the court created an unworkable situation by ruling the way it did; it has created chaos in the medical field for half of the states.
> Now decades of an activist judiciary have distorted that concept as the legislative branch has chosen to abdicate their responsibility for their own gain, but the fact still stands, congress should be making the laws and the courts deciding if they are constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality the first time. If it’s up to Congress to make the laws, then why did the Supreme Court intervene this time? They could have kicked this back to congress and said: “We already ruled on this. If you want a different outcome, do your job.” But they didn’t.
> that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.
We’re already there. That’s already happened. Stare decisis — remember when all the justices who just ruled to overturn Roe called it “settled law”? Remember when the Republican Senate refused to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Remember when the courts gutted the voting rights act? Remember when the courts determined the outcome of Bush v Gore? The side that “won” this argument didn’t do it by playing by the rules. Because the court doesn’t have rules. The constitution doesn’t outline any of the philosophy that you are calling “rules.” So sitting back and saying “let’s just play by the rules” is handing a victory to a side that doesn’t care for them.
>and lower courts can and do refuse to enforce laws on that basis
Courts don't enforce laws, but I get what you mean. I have no confidence whatsoever that appellate courts will do anything about these laws. There has been a willful, deliberate, strategic stacking of the judiciary starting in the early 2000s to get us to this place.
Sorry to repeat myself, but we really can't all sit back and reference our civics books as if this system is still functioning to protect us against these fucked up laws. It's over. Stare decisis is now at the whim of the political affiliation of the courts.
>I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut.
Out of curiosity, what about the current makeup of appellate courts in this region + the Supreme Court makes you think this is going to get shut down quickly?
The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply.
Think I'm joking? This is the stated judicial philosophy of the majority of Supreme Court justices. There is no traditional deeply rooted in American tradition that says anything about the Internet, either.
>How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause?
Laws are allowed until the Court rules on them. The states can pass all manner of fucked up laws (and they will), and they will stand while we figure this out -- or, until the Supreme Court rules in their favor.
Edit: changing Supreme Court to Courts, since the appellate court exists. But the point is the same.
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide.
Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forced to travel out of state to have an abortion was just how it goes while we figure out how to get the book keeping figured out; as if the woman who was forced to carry a dead fetus inside her for weeks because the hospital didn't want to risk being sued was just one of those tragic, unforeseeable, unavoidable victims of our imperfect democracy.
These are lives we're talking about here. And it's only going to get worse. Sorry to use a cliche, but wake the fuck up y'all.
Yep. That's why my therapist said, “sometimes people are depressed because their life just sucks, so let’s see if that’s the case before we consider a chemical intervention.”
> Poverty, insecure work, sexism, racism, interpersonal conflict, etc all clearly associate with depression. The vast sums of money spent on looking for the chemical equation of low mood might be missing the forest for the trees
Finally. Finally finally finally. I had a therapist my first go-around tell me, when I asked if I should be on medication, that “sometimes people are depressed because their life just sucks, so let’s see if that’s the case before we consider a chemical intervention.” And he was right.
[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis