Liberals shoot themselves in the Foot with latest Decision

[BUDDY]

Over the past year, we have heard over and over again the questions to nominated judges concerning stari decisis, or presedence, and the importance of precedence when discussing cases brought before the high court. In particular, the more liberal members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask questions concerning stari decisis, and the importance of it when considering abortion cases. With todays decision however, liberals are finding themselves in a bind, as the high court has set an all new presidence. With today's decision they have ignored stari decisis and decided to limited presidential power in the time of war, ignoring past cases. Because of this, the liberal members of the court have no excuses when abortion is again brought before the court, and past cases are ignored. Justices are now free to decide cases based on consitutionality, not upon what past courts have done. This will end up shooting liberalism in the foot.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't think it should end up shooting liberalism in the foot. As a liberal, I don't base my beliefs on past cases and in fact I consider this a particularly bad justification for political ideology.

Those past cases were successful for a reason. The same reasoning can simply be produced for modern cases. Why is stari decisis necessary except for practicality and efficiency?

Frankly, if such a tactic is used by liberals in order to block reforms then I view it as entirely dishonest and I feel that liberalism will benefit from being unable to dip into that little piece of corruption.

 

[BUDDY]

Frankly, if such a tactic is used by liberals in order to block reforms then I view it as entirely dishonest and I feel that liberalism will benefit from being unable to dip into that little piece of corruption.

Actually, I quite agree. Good post. Regardless of how much sense it makes, liberals in the Senate have made it very clear that they are hanging on stari in order to protect what they believe are rights protected under the constitution. It seems now though that they only believe this when it works in their favor.

 

[Fluffy]

It seems now though that they only believe this when it works in their favor.

I do not know enough about American politics to be able to comment on that but I do feel that if a liberals only argument against illegalising abortion was because of Roe vs Wade then they are arguing from an incredibly weak position. Precedent is only a justification when the precedent is justified. Why not just go for the justification in the first place?

Reliance on a system that automatically accepts that all precedent is justified seems very dodgy indeed to me. And, as you say, putting a double standard on top of that simply makes things worse.