Done told you it is a legal fiction & some other points

Point 1 -

Lawyers get mad when I say stare decisis is a legal fiction.

Stare D., for those who do not know, is Latin. Translated into English with complete meaning, it means: The law is settled. The matter is decided. It is over, done and finished. This is the way it is. Now go away with your idle prattle about changing it or I shall taunt you again.

It's also high-grade fertilizer.

A lie, in other words.

Since its creation, the Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 200 times. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/supreme-court-cases-overturned-history-constitution-trnd/index.html

The latest was this week. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/732852170/supreme-court-affirms-police-can-draw-blood-from-unconscious-drivers

This is empirical evidence. Proof. Fact as solid as a collapsed star.

Stare decisis is a lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

This painful truth has abortion rights activists panicking. We gun advocates are over here like-



Point 2 -

This case revolved around a DUI. Unlike some other crimes - yes, DUI is a crime in my view - evidence for this one literally disappears. Over time, a human body processes alcohol and it leaves the system.

DUI is a crime because it impairs a person's ability to drive. It's all fine & dandy to say a drunk driver committed no crime if he made it to his destination safely. Folks who believe that will not say the same thing when they are crippled by a drunk driver. They won't say it when one of their children is killed by a drunk driver.

Got no problem with someone getting drunk and staying where they are, walking or getting a ride with someone.

Point 3 - 

The driver had a state-issued driver's license. By getting this official recognition from the state and maintaining that permit, he literally signed a contract with the state. This contract held him to certain standards and put accountability requirements on him and on the state.

On this, Neil Gorsuch and I agree, I think. "We took this case to decide whether Wisconsin drivers impliedly consent to blood alcohol tests thanks to a state statute," Gorsuch wrote. "That law says that anyone driving in Wisconsin agrees — by the very act of driving — to testing under certain circumstances. But the Court today declines to answer the question presented. Instead, it upholds Wisconsin's law on an entirely different ground—citing the exigent circumstances doctrine."  Mebbe we disagree and he rejects the idea of the contract. Eh. The whole decision is in the NPR report.

Ya don't agree with the terms of the contract, ya don't sign the contract. Simple enough.

Point 4 -

The dude's BAC was .222%. He was unconscious when he got to the ER. A blood draw, under the circumstances, is usual, needed, expected and standard. Docs needed to know what they were dealing with. Was he just drunk? Was he OD'ing on some other drugs?