Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajoo
"So SCOTUS rulings are "the law of the land".
Correct, they are unless overruled by Congress with a new law if it will pass the constitutional muster.
"When you don't agree, the court is "far right leaning", and "politically corrupted"."
They are opinions and everyone is entitled to have one.
Wasn't overturning Roe vs. Wade an example of a far right decision, since a majority of this country is pro- abortion, even extreme states like TX and FL if only they are honest enough to let the people decide?
|
SCOTUS rulings become a matter of legal precedent reflecting the opinion of a majority of justices, but such rulings are by no means the law of the land or settled law. Precedents can be revisited by future courts and redressed.
Courts and justices do not write laws (though many attempt it and they are sometimes successful). They are limited to interpreting legal statutes.
Only Congress can make a law. Justices may decide whether a particular law is Constitutional. Row V Wade was not a law. It was a legal precedent. To refer to it - as the left did for many years - was more about marketing than it was an exercise in legal analysis. To label a SCOTUS decision as a "far-right" decision is also more about marketing than legal analysis.
I'd certainly concede the fact that most Americans favor access to abortion. I think most surveys I've seen regarding the question of "access to abortion" favor it by something like 60/40.
However, many legal scholars also point out flaws in the Roe decision. Thus when SCOTUS recently overturned Roe, they overturned what many would suggest was a flawed legal decision that conjured a Constitutional right that did not exist. Its also worth noting that, at least in terms of Federal law, nothing has really changed since Roe was overturned. The US constitution did not ban abortion before Roe, and abortion is not illegal under the US constitution following the recent SCOTUS decision.