Page 19 - Casey Decision News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Last week let this law go into effect without having a constitutional challenge. i mean even the state of texas acknowledges that this law conflicts with binding supreme court precedent, roe v. wade in 1973, the casey decision in 1992. no question that this law conflicts with the laws -- the law of the land as we think it exists. but by -- the supreme court in letting this go into effect has created this completely bizarre situation where a plainly unconstitutional law is now in effect and now denying women their rights in texas. and there is no court at this moment evaluating whether it's con...

And substantive irregularities to say the least about this. this comes out of the court's so-called shadow docket. it was not the regular doctket, and justice alito was on the watch and clearly wanted to let it go through. the three liberals and justice roberts dissented from it. what's going on is outrageous because it's clear that the texas state law is in direct collision with roe v. wade and planned parenthood v. casey. roe v. wade, you remember, had the trimester framework. but the casey decision said the stace could only ban abortion after the point of viability outside the body of the m...

But ostensibly, chief justice roberts and justice kavanaugh did not agree to take up the case because it had planned parenthood as the plaintiff. paul: dan, what do you think? here's the backdrop, because for years now -- really decades -- the abortion opponents have pursued an incremental strategy; that is, they understood a frontal assault on roe was not going to work after the casey decision came down. so we're going to work with incremental regulations in the states that could pass muster. now they're giving that up and going for the whole thing. and that's a pretty risky strategy, it seem...

But ostensibly, chief justice roberts and justice kavanaugh did not agree to take up the case because it had planned parenthood as the plaintiff. paul: dan, what do you think? here's the backdrop, because for years now -- really decades -- the abortion opponents have pursued an incremental strategy; that is, they understood a frontal assault on roe was not going to work after the casey decision came down. so we're going to work with incremental regulations in the states that could pass muster. now they're giving that up and going for the whole thing. and that's a pretty risky strategy, it seem...

Circumstances. the judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. there are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the supreme court would rightly overturn a precedent. the most famous example was when the supreme court in browns versus the board of education overruled plessy versus ferguson correcting a grieve usually wrong decision to use the judge's term allowing racial inequality. but someone that believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the constitution would follow long-established precedent except in both rar...