Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Roe's Weak Reasoning
A sure sign of judicial activism, either from the left or the right, is when a court issues a ruling, people scratch their heads and say "where did that come from?"
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found an absolute right to abortion such that not a single state's 200 years of abortion legislation was in compliance with this new Constitutional "right." Everybody had gotten it wrong from 1776 to 1972, until Justice Blackman set us all straight.
Agree or disagree with Roe but it is a classic case of judges writing new legislation from the bench, not interpreting the law.
Even pro-choice activists seek to change the subject when it comes to a discussion of the legal reasoning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe. Their sensitivity on the subject is such that the only acceptable answer to Senator Schumer's "Do you believe that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided" question is "of course."
The problem with that answer is that it will also make a Supreme Court nominee an absolute laughingstock among his peers. A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be a "lawyers' lawyer." A lawyers lawyer may agree with Roe's result but must hold his nose as to its reasoning.
|posted by Jim on 5:33 PM|
Link
. . .
|
. . .
|
