Westonci.ca is the premier destination for reliable answers to your questions, provided by a community of experts. Connect with a community of professionals ready to help you find accurate solutions to your questions quickly and efficiently. Get immediate and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of experienced professionals on our platform.

ill give brainiest if u answer correctly
Take a close look at the concurring and dissenting opinions in Casey v. Planned Parenthood and consider the information listed below. After your consideration, answer the questions on the following page. Casey v. Planned Parenthood was the first case challenging the Roe v. Wade decision, because two liberal judges were replaced with conservative appointments (Justices Souter and Thomas). Eight of the justices serving on the Supreme Court at the time of this ruling were conservative Republican appointments. The only justice on the Court who had been appointed by a Democrat was Justice White, who had not been a supporter of the Roe decision. Justices Blackmun and Stevens were supporters of the Roe decision. Many people believed that such a conservative court would overturn Roe v. Wade completely, but this did not occur. Based on this information, are you surprised by the Court’s decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood? Do you believe that any of the justices could be accused of judicial activism based on their written opinions in this case? Include relevant quotes from the opinions in the case, if you like.


Sagot :

Answer: I’m honestly not surprised because it definitely seems like a very one sided decision. The United States Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to correct the error of their ruling in Roe. Instead, the Court arrogantly chose to maintain their position in an all too common case of “repeat judicial activism.” In the courtroom, decisions are too often guided – not by legislation – but rather by so-called “case-law,” i.e., past court decisions, or precedent. This adherence to “precedent” is said to provide consistency and uniformity among the numerous courts of the United States. However, blind adherence to bad precedents results in the “consistent and uniform” multiplication of bad results.

Explanation: