@MugsysRapSheet when I search the opinion, the phrase "specific to this one case" turns up no hits.

It's not in there.

@CivilityFan @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@volkris
Apparently it was in the announcement:

announced that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances,”

How can that be read any other way? Smh

@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun

@CivilityFan

You left off the rest of the sentence, " for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

So their consideration here is not to speak generally and tackle all possible circumstances, but only the situation as they describe it.

That doesn't mean it's not precedent setting. Other similar situations would be expected to follow the same disposition.

By cutting the sentence in half and only looking at the first half, much less the following paragraph that lends further clarification, people are able to twist the meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@CivilityFan if you read the ruling, it puts that line in context that suggests not the lack of precedent but rather the lack of generality.

Either way, no, they didn't "specifically qualify the ruling as not setting precedent" even if some might have read between lines to propose that meaning.

In other words, even if that's the correct interpretation--despite it being missing from the clear text of the opinion--it certainly wasn't specifically qualified. At best it was innuendo.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
Really? I was present and the idea that was communicated to me was that their use of that Latin phrase was unambiguous. I know it motivated a lot of discussion at the time. In any event, precedent doesn’t mean much to the majority of these Justices anyway

@CivilityFan the amount of time these justices spend citing precedent would suggest that precedent does, indeed, mean something.

They don't ignore precedent as meaningless. Quite the opposite. They spend a ton of time and ink addressing it because it has such meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@volkris

Roe

@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun

@CivilityFan Roe, which was absolutely not ignored in SCOTUS deliberations.

Rather, because they respected precedent, both Roe and generations of precedent that came after and even because of Roe, they wrote extensively about precedent in arriving at their ruling.

The tumult around Roe speaks exactly against your conclusion: it was a great example of how important precedent is to this court.

Should they be ignoring precedent as suggested above it would have been much easier to have settled the question. Instead, they respected precedent in their opinions, addressing precedent front and center.

@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@volkris

What is the weather like on your planet?

If you see SCUTUS’s decision in overturning Roe as concern for precedent, then I see no point in pursuing a conversation with you, please exclude me in the future of this thread, goodbye.

@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun

@MugsysRapSheet @CivilityFan @axeshun @philip_cardella You hung in there way longer than I did, Jeff.

@CivilityFan

I live on the planet where precedents were so important to the Supreme Court's process that the Dobb's opinion went out of its way to include two appendices doing nothing but laying them out.

People will often spread misinformation about what courts say. In any case that's important to you, there is no substitute for reading the ruling directly.

Here it is, so you can read it with your own eyes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun

@volkris
I politely asked you to remove me from this thread.
Claiming you see a regard for precedent in the ruling that eviscerated Roe, when the real world effect of that decision has been to negate the right women previously had to have control over their own bodies.
I enjoy discussions with folks on Mastodon even when we have disagreements, but I expect them to stay respectful and intellectually honest. You are neither, so I shall mute you.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun

@volkris
The challenge to #Roe brought up by #Dobbs was rushed to beat the 50th Anniversary of Roe at which point "precedent" would be regarded "settled law".

There is NO intellectually honest way to say overturning a 48 year old SCotUS decision based on NO new information is "respecting precedent".

@MugsysRapSheet Have you read the argument (that I linked above)? Where specifically do you think it gets it wrong?

You say there is NO intellectually honest way to say it's respecting precedent, and that makes for a dramatic statement, but it seems to me the argument is emphatically focused on doing exactly that.

So where exactly is the argument wrong?

@volkris
You are reading the #SCotUS decision from a point of view that they are being intellectually honest when they state the Roe decision did NOT in fact protect the right to an abortion, and therefore by nullifying it, they aren't breaking with precedent.

But that's simply not true or else nothing would have changed following their ruling.

#Roe was a #Federal ruling that superseded any state level decision to curb the right to an abortion.

#Dobbs nullified that.

@MugsysRapSheet I'm reading the SCOTUS decision from a point of view that if we want to know what SCOTUS said we should consult SCOTUS.

The rest doesn't actually matter, because that's how the US legal system works.

Again, where exactly do you find an error in their actual ruling, not in some strawman set up for dramatic sake?

@volkris
My last reply on the issue:

Last Sunday on ABC's "#ThisWeek", JD Vance was fuming when Steph-O ended the interview when he tried to argue CONGRESS could decide whether or not a SCotUS decision was Constitutional and it *wasn't* in fact the final word.

Republicans love to pick & choose what rules they choose to follow. Any law/rule that's inconvenient is suddenly open to interpretation (see T**** now claiming laws don't apply to POTUS.)

Saying states can ignore Roe WASN'T in Roe.

@MugsysRapSheet

Yes, Republicans tend to be pretty dumb, what of it?

It doesn't at all change what the Supreme Court actually said, or all of the misrepresentations of what the Supreme Court said, from Republicans and others.