Basically, it's precedent. Stare Decisis is the legal precedent that you'll hear some judicial nominees cite when they're asked specifically about Roe v Wade; it essentially means that the Court is bound by a previous decision that was handed down. In this case, Roe v Wade established that the right to abortions is covered under Article 1 of the 14th Amendment; it's actually a privacy decision. There's already established case law saying legislation like what Alabama just passed is unconstitutional.Not a lawyer my dude, what does that mean?
I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh votes against it too - despite all the doom and gloom that libs spread about him, he's really only moderately right-leaning.
I wonder if they're choosing now in the event the GOP loses the Senate/Executive next year and RBG retires and gets replaced by a 40-something liberal.I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh votes against it too - despite all the doom and gloom that libs spread about him, he's really only moderately right-leaning.
I'm no fan of abortion, but I wouldn't have pushed to challenge Roe until after RBG had kicked the bucket.
It still has to be heard by the SCOTUS for that to be the argument. This will be really hard to explain on my phone because it's a convoluted legal process; but if the SCOTUS uses the stare decisis justification, they would essentially be saying that "this was decided in 1973, we're not revisiting it."Or they could use the 10th Amendment. Challenge federal jurisdiction over the matter.