Posted on 10/28/2008 6:52:57 PM PDT by markomalley
While conservatives worry about the kind of Supreme Court justices a President Obama might appoint, new questions about the rightness of the high court’s abortion rulings have arisen from within. In remarks last week at Princeton University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was highly critical of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which effectively allowed abortion on demand nationwide. She suggested the court had gone too far and that a more incremental decision “would have been an opportunity for a dialogue with the state legislators” and a chance for states to take the lead on the issue. Ginsburg also lamented the “rallying point” it provided for launching the pro-life movement. “I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman’s choice, but the court should not have done it all,” she said. But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Ginsburg is fully committed to unrestricted abortion, as seen in her strong dissent in the 2007 partial-birth abortion decision, Gonzales v. Carhart. “There, Ginsburg argues that the ‘right of privacy’ theory doesn't go far enough in protecting abortion, arguing a new theory that would result in all abortion regulations being struck down as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — a step even beyond Roe.” |
From the school paper, The Princetonian,
When asked about the discrepancy between her support of a woman’s right to choose and her disapproval of Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to legalized abortion in 1973, Ginsburg said that she was surprised by “how far the court had gone [in this decision].”
“It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to say that the extreme cases are unconstitutional” without broadening the decision to the 50 states.
Ginsburg said that the abruptness of the decision, which declared many state statutes unconstitutional, created a “perfect rallying point” for people who disagreed with the notion that abortion should be a woman’s choice. She added that the decision may have also stifled dialogue with state legislatures.
“I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman’s choice, but the court should not have done it all,” she said.
She added that in the absence of a sweeping decision like Roe, it is possible that abortion rights legislation would have evolved organically in the same way that no-fault divorce laws have.
Unfortunately, she's probably right: the frog-boiling argument would have likely taken hold had Roe not been decided in the manner it was. (If you want to boil a frog, you don't dump it in a pot of boiling water as it will jump out. Rather, you put it in a pot of cold water and turn the heat up gradually. By the time it realizes the water is boiling, it's already cooked)
pro-life/ moral absolutes ping for your lists
Knock me over with a feather.
Right to privacy has nothing to do with right to kill....I am sure Blackmun is in purgatory right now for a long, long time and grieving for all the babies he has caused to die.......
It’s all because of Sarah Palin. She’s standing up for life. She’s made the issue important again. She will win this election for McCain.
I could believe because just 10-15 years ago there were liberal legal scholars who would (and could) admit that Roe was bad case law, even if the outcome was what was wanted.
Maybe she’s getting ready to die and trying to cover all contingencies with a little fire insurance. Wouldn’t be the first time a heathen contemplating a dirt nap has found a little regret or repentence when facing the real consequences of eternity.
The court should not have done it AT all. Violation of the Tenth Amendment.
She’s not critizing the result, mind you. Just the process.
In other words “I like it; but not how I, Queen Ginsburg, would do it.”
Actually, can’t say I’m surprised. Most judges with whom I have conversed over the years, even the liberal ones, while they may be pro-choice, to a man/woman they feel the “penumbra of rights” extended the Bill of Rights a bit too far. The concern was that it may give rise to “other rights” that could be extreme or cause problems.
Bizzaro edge10 like Bizzaro Obama.
We are in the Bizzaro universe, right???!!!
Wait a minute! There is either a right to privacy or there isn’t one. She really does beleive the court should legislate.
This is simply a fake move by the Left, designed to affect this election.
I have a feeling that many pro choice old bags are starting to rethink their positions on abortion. As Bill Cosby once said “Their OLD people trying to get into heaven!” Whatever is moving their hearts, I hope they move a little quicker-before they cease to beat and must meet their Maker. I would not want to be any of them on that day.......
So why does she keep voting to compound the problem?
Sounds about like O’Conner’s decision that affirmative action was Constitutional, but only for the next twenty years, and then it would be unconstitutional.
Hey Ruth Buzzy, either something is addressed in the Constitution or it is not, that’s as the only analysis a judge needs to undertake. At least she’s admitting the court’s decision was a political, not legal decision.
Justice William H. Rehnquist, in dissent of Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
In other words “I like it; but not how I, Queen Ginsburg, would do it.”
The wild part about this is that it cuts off the primary argument used by the pro-death crowd (including Obama) that abortion/ infanticide is a fundamental Constitutional Right that outweighs freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly.
She is saying that abortion should be allowed statutorily. That is HUGH and SERIES!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.