Can you explain to me how Roe v. Wade happened if court cases normally take more than 9 months to resolve?
How are they granted STANDING to sue if they're not pregnant?
Norma McCorvey was pregnant, gave birth, and the lawsuit was somehow allowed to proceed after that?
just because it was a class action suit?
- YetiLv 74 years agoFavorite Answer
There is a standard mootness exception that allows the court to hear an issue if it's "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade is now taught as probably the most classic example. Prior, the most cited case was Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, from 1911. This is straight from the Wikipedia article:
An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court's disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe's appeal was "moot" because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked "standing" to assert the rights of other pregnant women. As she did not present an "actual case or controversy" (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion, a practice forbidden by Article III of the United States Constitution.
The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule: one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review." This phrase had been coined in 1911 by Justice Joseph McKenna. Blackmun's opinion quoted McKenna and noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied."Source(s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Justicia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Capable_of_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_Ter...
- AthenaLv 74 years ago
That is not how the Supreme Court works.
It is not a trial court.
You do not go there to prove innocence or guilt, you go there to get a ruling on the constitutionality of the law in question.
For example, if the police thought I shot a man and just entered into my home to look for a gun, even if they found one, I could question my conviction based on this "illegally obtained" evidence. In the COurt agreed that police need a search warrant to enter my home, I can still be tired for the crime I am accused of. A decision in my favor only means THAT PART of my trial was thrown out.
Roe V Wade was one of a series of court cases used to establish a woman as a citizen of the US, with all rights and privileges, even after she is married.
- justaLv 74 years ago
It was brought under right to privacy. And it meandered around the courts for a very long time. She had the baby before the case was decided.
- Anonymous4 years ago
You are an imbecile if you imagine that the victim of a hit-and-run accident who takes so long to track down the perpetrator that she is "healed" by the time he's arrested suddenly 'has no case', my ignorant friend....
You really should seek help for that!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MuttLv 74 years ago
Most cases are after the fact, and the damages are no longer a factor. When it gets to that point, it's about the law itself, not about the individual any more.
- 4 years ago
- TicToc....Lv 74 years ago
From what I hear, R vs. W was an abortion of human rights.