Its logic was certainly baffling to Justice Byron White, who observed in his dissenting opinion in 1973 that the Court had "Simply fashion[ed] and announce[d] a new Constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invest[ed] that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."
Presciently, the late Antonin Scalia explained, in his dissenting opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, precisely how and why Roe has created these current circumstances, where political sentiments on this issue have pulled toward the ideological poles in an all-or-nothing national debate that is ultimately to be settled by nine Supreme Court justices.
Clearly, Alabama's law is a direct challenge to the Court's previous rulings protecting Roe v. Wade on the principle of stare decisis, which demands that, however wrong the conclusion may have been, it is "Settled precedent" determined by the Court, as Justice Sotomayor describes it.
In short, the Constitution gave us a formula to navigate this issue, and it is best handled state-to-state rather than being "Irrevocably fixed" by the Supreme Court.
First, the national debate over abortion will continue, whatever the result of the coming Supreme Court decision on any new abortion legislation like Alabama's.
We should begin by stating the obvious: Roe v. Wade was an errant ruling by the Supreme Court, and one which has rightfully earned "Public opposition and academic criticism" because the "Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."
As late as 2005, even she acknowledged that "In 1973, the law was changing. Women were lobbying around that issue. The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way the courts generally work."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_answer_to_the_abortion_debate_has_existed_in_the_constitution_all_along.html
Is Abortion Politics Going Crazy?
by William Murchison
Presciently, the late Antonin Scalia explained, in his dissenting opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, precisely how and why Roe has created these current circumstances, where political sentiments on this issue have pulled toward the ideological poles in an all-or-nothing national debate that is ultimately to be settled by nine Supreme Court justices.
Clearly, Alabama's law is a direct challenge to the Court's previous rulings protecting Roe v. Wade on the principle of stare decisis, which demands that, however wrong the conclusion may have been, it is "Settled precedent" determined by the Court, as Justice Sotomayor describes it.
In short, the Constitution gave us a formula to navigate this issue, and it is best handled state-to-state rather than being "Irrevocably fixed" by the Supreme Court.
First, the national debate over abortion will continue, whatever the result of the coming Supreme Court decision on any new abortion legislation like Alabama's.
We should begin by stating the obvious: Roe v. Wade was an errant ruling by the Supreme Court, and one which has rightfully earned "Public opposition and academic criticism" because the "Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."
As late as 2005, even she acknowledged that "In 1973, the law was changing. Women were lobbying around that issue. The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way the courts generally work."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_answer_to_the_abortion_debate_has_existed_in_the_constitution_all_along.html
Is Abortion Politics Going Crazy?
by William Murchison
No comments:
Post a Comment