Fun Speach

[wyvernmoon]

So, I was going to post yesterday about a great lunch opportunity that the school provided.  AWIL (Association of Women in Law) invited Sarah Weddington to come speak.  Sarah Weddington, besides teaching at UT, argued Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court.  She argued before the Supreme Court at the age of 26, the youngest person to ever win a Supreme

Comments

[tashar]

Wow! :-)

[badandyho]

I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

That's hard to top.

[wyvernmoon]

uhm... do i want to ask?

[shaolin_warrio]

her total legal experience consisted of a handful of uncontested divorces, some wills for people with no money, and her uncle's adoption case. ... she was just going to file a case like ones being filed in states all over the country, to try to get one of those cases accepted to the Supreme Court

Did she bring up or did anybody ask her the logical follow-up question?

I'm not sure how to word this, but we've all seen "A Few Good Men." Tom Cruise is a young attorney "with a history of plea bargaining cases" and has "never seen the inside of a court room." Yet, he is selected to defend the case of the decade. Why? "Could it be that somebody doesn't want this to go to trail?"

With that in mind, did she ever wonder if her case was selected specifically because: A) she was inexperienced and B) that she was a woman (in an age where women weren't seen as serious lawyers)? In otherwords, does she wonder if Roe V Wade was selected as the case to go before the Court specifically because they knew she would fail?

[wyvernmoon]

Well, there was a procedural rule that gor her case a chance to appeal directly to the Supreme COurt instead of to one of the Circuit Courts. If a three-judge federal court makes a decsion and local law enforcement refuses to enforce it, you can appeal directly. When the Dallas Federal District court ruled for her, Wade, the district attorney stated in a press conference that he would contnue to prosecute.
That probably helped.

[shaolin_warrio]

Ok, cool, that makes sense. I didn't know that about the history of the case.

[shaolin_warrio]

The other question I have is did she talk about her views on the decision? Some people (both pro-life and pro-choice) believe the decision was a bad law. I also know that "Roe" is now a pro-life activist. 30+ years later, what are her thoughts on the decision?

And I definately don't want to get into a debate on Abortion, I'm just curious as to what her thoughts are on it. Agree or disagree with abortion, as the lawyer on this case, this one case maker her one of the most influencial people in the past 35 years.

[wyvernmoon]

She seemed very concerned about the possibility of roe being overruled, so I'm going to bet that, yeah, she still agrees with it.
HOwever, she didn't discuss the fact that it was a really bad decision (not outcome-wise, but in writing and in how the judge argued it).

[shaolin_warrio]

HOwever, she didn't discuss the fact that it was a really bad decision (not outcome-wise, but in writing and in how the judge argued it).

Ok, I know (or believe) that you are pro-choice. But this comment sounds like you fall into the camp that believes the decision was bad nonetheless.

Without going into a debate on abortion itself, can you educate me on why the decision itself is poorly decided?

Also, if it was poorly decided, in your opinion, was that because the Judges made a bad opinion? Or was it because she made a good/creative argument that resulted in a poor legal decision?

Again, I STRESS, I don't want to debate abortion itself, I'm just curious as to the argument that the decision was bad.

[rohangypsy]

okay, unrelated to your post, but should I be worried that your pic is Badger?

[wyvernmoon]

why should you? you certainly shouldn't be surprised. (: