The Danger of Precedent

While on one hand, I completely understand the concept of precedent, when do we just admit that a mistake may have been made?

Some of the conversation in the Prop 8 hearing this morning has surrounded an earlier decision to allow the death penalty in the State of California. Life, most certainly, is a fundamental and inalienable right. I will not get into the death penalty discussion here, but I would make the point that the fact that the court made a questionable decision in the past does not mean they are required to follow suit in the future... or should I say, it should not. Mistakes have been made in the past. Racist legislation has been passed and subsequently overturned, as have other issues.

That said, however, the death penalty directly (not concerning indirect effects at this time) affects CRIMINALS. There is a difference in the way we treat our law-abiding citizens and our criminals. Rights are taken away when you are a felon. That is a fact. Therefore, regardless of your stance on the death penalty and whether or not it should be allowed, it does not have anything to do with the Equal Rights and Equal Protection conversation where law-abiding citizens are concerned.

On a lighter note, I am getting tired of the symantic arguments over the meaning of "inalienable," "fundamental," "revision," and "amendment." I understand that this is the basis of today's argument, but OH MY GOSH it's getting tiresome! Maybe someone will jump up on a desk or something and inject some excitment to the hearing. :)