Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYoshino, Kenji
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:42.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:45:16Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:45:16Z
dc.date.issued1994-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/4388
dc.identifier.contextkey4191081
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/3875
dc.description.abstractOn June 29, 1992, the joint opinion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey' "spectacularly failed to overrule ' the holding of Roe v. Wade.' The writers of the joint opinion suggested that stare decisis, or the legal doctrine mandating that precedent be followed, disciplined their analysis, and that they were bound by Roe's holding regardless of their personal opinions on whether the Constitution protects a woman's choice to have an abortion.' Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion, on the other hand, maintained that stare decisis did not compel upholding Roe and asserted that Roe should be overruled. The Rehnquist opinion further implied that the joint opinion invoked the doctrine of stare decisis as a convenient way of implementing individual Justices' political predilections while allowing those Justices to avoid accountability for their controversial views on abortion.
dc.subjectstare decisis
dc.subjectprecedent
dc.titleWhat's Past is Prologue: Precedent in Literature and Law
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:45:16Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4388
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5385&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
What_s_Past_is_Prologue_Preced ...
Size:
2.110Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record