Thomas on stare decisis

A response to this: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=1295844844726123216&page=1&token=1651949387841

<I>Thomas worried about the "different attitude of the young" and how they bully the Court when they don't get the outcome they want, but how deferential to authority should young people be? </I>

It's not about being deferential to authority.

It's about thinking, rather than emoting and bullying.

<I>When you impugn stare decisis as a "mantra," you call for more analysis and criticism and less passive obeisance to authority. I would say that's inconsistent with a demand that we accept the outcomes handed down by the Court from on high. That too is obeisance.</I>

That's not what he's doing.  he's saying "stop throwing temper tantrums when you don't get your way, and engage rationally with the opposition."

So, You've got the Alito draft.  Have you engaged with it as anything other than a temperamental whinefest of "but previous members of SCOTUS said this was my right!!11!"?

I've only see you post one thing, a comment on his discussion of reliance interests.  And there you admitted that when you tried to teach that part of Casey is was a pathetic hot mess.

So, do you hav anything other than a demand that we defer to the authority of the previous 5 members of SCOTUS who voted for Casey?

<I>The Court seems to be withdrawing a right that was in place for 50 years. You can't expect people to humbly receive the new version of what the law is</I>

No, but we can expect adults, as opposed to overgrown children, to react as rational people, not whining brats.

To care about " right that was in place for 50 years" you must defer to the authority of the SCOTUS members who created that "right".

If SCOTUS members are owed that deference, then so are the current ones junking it.  If the current ones are owed no deference, then neither are the ones who created it.

Pick one

<I>Did you think we'd all sit quietly reading a hundred pages of careful reasoning and be impressed by the cogency of it all?</I>

No, he thought you'd act like adults, and think, rather than throw temper tantrums like little children.

<I>There's a good chance that no one has dutifully read every word. We jump into guesses and theories about what's really going on.</I>

Speck for yourself.  I read every word of the 60 pages of the opinion (I skipped the 30 pages of Appendix).  I haven't bothered to follow up on the footnotes, because I expect that if Alito got anything wrong some leftie law type will be more than happy to point that out.

So far I haven't read of any lefty law types doing that.  Have you?

The Lochner Courts established individual economic rights that lasted for longer than 50 years.  The New Deal Courts nuked all those rights.  So you can't honestly claim this has never been done before.

But when all is said and done, the question comes down to this:

Was Roe a legally, Constitutionally, and historically legitimate decision?

The answer is clearly "no".  Because if it was "yes" you'd be engaging with the Alito draft, not whining about stare decisis.