News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Leaked SCOTUS Draft Opinion Suggests Imminent Overturn of... by gadders on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @01:57PM (#31251344)
Page 62 to in the draft opinion: "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterised, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
Re:Leaked SCOTUS Draft Opinion Suggests Imminent Overturn of... by jgon on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @06:45PM (#31254548)
Alito during his confirmation hearing: "Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed."

Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing: "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing: "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

I guess you'll have to forgive me if I say that I don't put a ton of weight into what the justices claim, and I think that time will probably bear out that my opinion is the correct one if we revisit this in a few years' time.

Re:Leaked SCOTUS Draft Opinion Suggests Imminent Overturn of... by throwaway-bzOxW on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @11:16PM (#31256364)
Not disagreeing with your original comment, but my guess is the justices phrased what they said during confirmations in such a way that they would still agree with it now.

"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis" - I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia: "A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts."

So I suspect they said "settled as a precedent" knowing that settled and reaffirmed precedents have the possibility of being overturned while still following "principles of stare decisis".