Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (63488)	11/18/1999 10:41:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Good question. If Roe misrepresented the facts, would the opinion change? In this case, no, because of the nature of the legal process. As you know, facts are found at the trial court level. You know juries make findings of fact, you may also know that judges make findings of fact. You may not know that in federal court, facts may be asserted in an affidavit. In Roe v. Wade, Roe challenged the constitutionality of a Texas statute prohibiting abortion. The defendant, as is traditional in such lawsuits, was the Attorney General of Texas. Roe's affidavit stated that she was pregnant, and wanted an abortion. This was not controverted by the defendant, the Attorney General of Texas. Thus, when the case went up on appeal, the facts were as the trial court found them. There are certain facts which, if misrepresented, can make a legal decision void, because the trial court did not have jurisdiction. For example, if Roe had not been a resident of Texas, but stated that she was, that would have made the decision void. If she lied about being pregnant, that wouldn't make the decision void. Even if she lied about wanting an abortion, that wouldn't make the decision void. Whether or not she was raped is irrelevant. I haven't seen the affidavit in the case, but I don't know whether it even stated that she was raped. The file is in the Supreme Court, and I am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, next time I am in the area, I'll take a look at the affidavit and see if it even represents that she was raped. But, it doesn't matter, because it didn't form the basis of the opinion. And if Roe now states that she didn't want an abortion, that wouldn't affect the validity of the case, because the facts are, and must be, as the trial court found them, unless they are of the type that cause the trial court not to have jurisdiction over the case to begin with. In other words, you can lie under oath, and if you get away with it, the court's decision is final, unless the court didn't have jurisdiction to begin with. So, no, it really doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.