"WASHINGTON - The woman once known as "Jane Roe" has asked the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 32 years ago."
The best way to explain how I think about it with a parallel to parliamentary law. There are three steps to making a main motion: a member stands and makes the original motion, another member seconds it, and then the chair restates the motion. The maker of the motion can withdraw or modify it until the chair has restated the motion; after that point the motion is the property of the assembly and the maker has no more claim to it than any other member.
This could be extended to any idea or judgment in society. Once the motion/case/general idea is suggested to society and asked to be decided on its merits, the original person can't take it back. Locke can't come back and say, "No no, I was wrong; you guys should have a divine king." Thomas Edison can't take back the light bulb. And Jane Roe can't come back say, "Enh, forget the whole thing," any more than anyone else can.
Roe v. Wade may be a lousy decision with teetering precedent that many on the left say would benefit abortion rights in the long run by being struck down, but it's there. And Jane Roe doesn't have any special status just because it's her name (or ex-name) on the title page.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that she has standing to bring the suit. Something which I'm sure she well knows, and if this was anything but a publicity stunt, she wouldn't have appealed from the lower court ruling.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
standing
This could be extended to any idea or judgment in society. Once the motion/case/general idea is suggested to society and asked to be decided on its merits, the original person can't take it back. Locke can't come back and say, "No no, I was wrong; you guys should have a divine king." Thomas Edison can't take back the light bulb. And Jane Roe can't come back say, "Enh, forget the whole thing," any more than anyone else can.
Roe v. Wade may be a lousy decision with teetering precedent that many on the left say would benefit abortion rights in the long run by being struck down, but it's there. And Jane Roe doesn't have any special status just because it's her name (or ex-name) on the title page.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that she has standing to bring the suit. Something which I'm sure she well knows, and if this was anything but a publicity stunt, she wouldn't have appealed from the lower court ruling.