Talk:Planned Parenthood v. Casey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"The Supreme Court's consideration" needs some help[edit]

This just sounds unprofessional. Kennedy "secretly" joined the plurality? "[W]ho had likewise refused to do so three years earlier . . ." Are we talking about Souter here? "[P]recarious five Justice majority" that consists of all the minority? I don't really see what this section adds to the entire article, other than to say that maybe some people were surprised with the court's outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.77 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


Missing verb in The Court's opinions ?[edit]

The Court's opinions starts with this sentence:

"Except for three opening sections of the O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter opinion, Casey a divided judgment, as no other sections of any opinion were joined by a majority of justices."

I think the middle clause wants to say, "Casey was a divided judgment," but I am uncertain. Is that what it's trying to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnskrb2 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stare Decisis?[edit]

Although popularly understood as an "abortion" case, I think more needs to be made of Casey's very significant changes to the doctrine of stare decisis, which merits more than just a one paragraph note. The four-part Casey test needs to be explained in detail and it needs to be alluded to in the lead paragraph. Strangely, it may be the stare decisis element of Casey that has the longer term consequences for abortion jurisprudence, rather than the Court's specific and highly restrained language about abortion itself here. I thought of making these changes myself but am too novitiate in Wikipedia protocol to do it without mangling the fine job that's already been done!

I agree that it's a significant part of the Court's opinion and should be discussed further. We should avoid doing more than summarizing what the opinion states, however, rather than trying to state what the consequences will be, because I'm not aware of any subsequent Court decisions expressly applying the stare decisis principles from Casey. Though law review comments and speculation to that effect would be appropriate to document in a "critical response" section. Postdlf 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

User 71.96.138.95 has inserted and then re-inserted her opinion that O'Connor declared her support of Roe v. Wade in her opinion in Webster v. Planned Parenthood. I encourage everyone to read O'Connor's opinion in Webster; nowhere does she declare her support for Roe v. Wade. 71.96.138.95 has also inserted her opinion that Justice Stevens had "long since developed a liberal reputation" and that Justice White was a "moderate conservative." White was very, very liberal in his interpretation of the commerce clause and on busing issues; 71.96.138.95, who provoked a similar silly discussion by repeatedly describing Anthony Kennedy as a "liberal" on the Anthony Kennedy page, seems to think the only thing that matters in con. interpretation is how broadly one interprets the 14th amendment. Justice Stevens similarly is not really a judicial liberal; he believes the death penalty to be constitutional, for example, a view most judicial liberals disagree with. And once again 71.96.138.95 refuses to respond on the talk page. So I am reverting Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Now the same anon user defends her claim that O'Connor was an "obvious" supporter with another reference to Webster and a reference to Rust v. Sullivan. If anon user had read Rust with an eye towards anything other than the result O'Connor supported, she would have found that O'Connor dissented entirely on statutory, not constitutional grounds. Let me repeat that: O'Connor disagreed as to how the majority had interpreted the statute at issue in Rust, and specifically avoided giving her opinion on constitutional matters. Similarly, anon user cites Webster in a very deceptive manner. O'Connor did not say in Webster it would always violate judicial restraint to reconsider Roe (which is how anon spins her partial quotation from O'Connor), but only argued that it was unnecessary to reconsider Roe in the context of the Webster litigation. Here is the full quote: "Unlike the plurality, I do not understand these viability testing requirements to conflict with any of the Court's past decisions concerning state regulation of abortion. Therefore, there is no necessity to accept the State's invitation to reexamine the constitutional validity of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." (Italics added). So I am reverting. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block


United States First Amendment case law[edit]

Why is this in category: United States First Amendment case law?? Can that be elaborating upon in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.227.87 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of changes needed[edit]

I just made a whole bunch of changes to the page, and in general the article still needs a lot more work. If anyone has a question or objection to any of my changes, discuss it here.141.166.159.77 (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am adding what some would consider a lot of content to this page. The content I am adding is coming directly from the case, and I am adding pincites to each thing I add. I encourage others to please review my pincites before deleting my comments. Yesterday, I added a lot of information to the plurality opinion section, and I added nothing to the concurring/dissenting section. This was not deliberate, just a time issue. I plan on adding more information to that section today to round off all of the very important opinions written in this case. Thank you. 6/30/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMaeglinReproRights (talkcontribs) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Confused[edit]

The article states that the O'Connor opinion was the plurality opinion because it had the most supporters (3) yet the Rehnquist & Scalia appear to have 4 supporters, which would give them the most support. Am I just reading this wrong or is there some technical reason for O'Connor's opinion being the plurality opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.221.232 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"...the plurality decision jointly written by Justices Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy is recognized as the lead opinion with precedential weight because each of its parts were concurred in by at least two other Justices, albeit different ones for each part." postdlf (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Background of the case": effects[edit]

The case defined where the role of women was seen in law. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law.

(deleted text, which cited as source Sexuality, Gender, and the Law, Third edition, Foundation Press, 2011.)

"It does not follow" and "in a sense unique to the human condition" are opinion, not fact. What's needed is an explanation of whose opinions these were, per WP:NPOV. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely, also, "the role of women" must encompass more than her decisions about pregnancy. And "in law" here means only in United States law. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just in case later visitors to this page are not clear because of your use of the quotebox template, the text you're critiquing above is not a quote from the cited source, but rather just editor-written text you removed from this article that was cited to that source in support.

Anyway, I think it should just stay out entirely because it's not an informative or even clear paragraph. I would say that we don't need to clarify that the "law" at issue is U.S. law when we're already deep in the middle of an article about a U.S. Supreme Court case, so the context (for those two words, at least) is clear. But that's moot as I don't think there's any reason to wrestle with it further or try to "fix" it. It accomplishes nothing in the article. postdlf (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)