Mr Alito was quoted in various news media today as saying he "respects" Roe v. Wade, due to its historic use as a precedent. Does it bother anyone besides me that his respect for the Roe ruling was not based in its recognition of specific rights, just simply on its merits as a precedent? I personally do not believe or accept "law by precedent." If it was a logical and meaningful method of judicial ruling, there would be no laws on the books except "The Code of Hammurabi", which, if I remember my history classes correctly, was the first written and codified and standardized set of legal mandates. Or if we wanted to go a little more recent, women would not have the right to vote, and it would still be illegal in several of our great states for a white to marry a nigger. Thank goodness there have been a few lawmakers who saw through the ruse and figured out that simply because a law was ruled one way yesterday, that does not mean it should stand today. Interracial marriage laws were unconstitutional when they were first passed; continuing to use them as precedent would be ridiculous at best, and (although I'm sure there are a few on this forum who would still have them in place) anyone who supported them would be ostracized in general society. (Comments only from someone with Doctor of Jurisprudence on this next set of statements, please) Precedent simply means a previous judgement in a particular case. If judges rule based on precedent, there is no need for the appellate court system, or even the Supreme Court, for that matter. If precedent actually holds any power, then appeals do not exist. Lawyers only cite precedent when it is convenient, when it is beneficial to one of their cases. Any legal entanglement should be based on its own merits, not on any previous judgements in another case.