Difference between revisions of "328--Week 14 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Crystal Lee Sutton, “The Real ‘Norma Rae’ Tells Her Story,” 1986.) |
(→Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
== Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 == | == Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 == | ||
| + | Planned Parenthood v Casey seems to be probably the most complicated court case ever decided. I read the whole decision, not just the part in the textbook (and I've read outside readings on it), and it seems like Casey concludes two things, and then applies them in different ways. 1) Roe v. Wade should be upheld, not because it was a correct decision, but because of ''stare decisis,'' the "rule" that the Court has to stick with what it said before; and, 2) some regulations on abortion are fine, but when they pose an undue burden to abortion they are illegal. | ||
| + | I won't take a stance on abortion, but the ''stare decisis'' rational seems crazy to me. It seems like a few judges (including or limited to Blackmum) decided that Roe was correct, and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter decided that Roe was wrong, but the Court should uphold it lest there seem to be instability in the law. Casey acknowledges "the interest of the State in the protection of potential life" which seems to be a repudiation of Roe on all but technical grounds. It seems unjust to me to uphold a law purely because the Supreme Court isn't allowed to admit it was wrong. | ||
| + | The undue burden standard seems somewhat rational to me, but only as a political compromise which the Court isn't supposed to do. In reading PP v Casey I can't find a single legal rationale for the undue burden standard, it seems completely arbitrary. It also seems like in many instances the Court is making law, not adjudicating it, and making it in a very vague fashion. The Court decided requirements for parental consent, informed decision, and 24 hour waiting periods were undue burdens, but spousal notification was not. Although I agree very much with at least the rational behind the last one, this sounds like something that should be debated by elected officials, not lifetime judges. | ||
| + | Also, I think the subdecision on parental consent proves the arbitrariness of the entire undue burden standard. If parents have a complete yes/no veto option over whether an abortion can happen, it seems like that's an undue burden, yet the Court ruled it was not. The legal argument that sometimes parents' rights come before some rights doesn't work, because if that's true than the right to abortion isn't ''fundamental,'' and Roe should have been overturned. Something is wrong with the legal system when justices form alliances to carve out politically biased, legally contradictory chunks of law. | ||
| + | I guess I don't understand why Roe v. Wade attracts so much attention these days, it seems like PP v Casey is much more relevant now, and a much more controversial (and legally questionable) decision. -- Matt Struth | ||
== Gloria Anzaldua soeakes about her identity, 1999 == | == Gloria Anzaldua soeakes about her identity, 1999 == | ||
