Posted on 05/13/2013 5:10:43 PM PDT by Morgana
Over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg complained that the decision in the Roe v Wade case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions was too overreaching.
She grumbled that it was decided in such a way that it made for an easy target for pro-life advocates complaining about its extremity.
From a report on her talk:
“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,” she told a crowd of students. “… My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”
The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women’s rights. Rather, the Roe opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman’s decision on whether to end a pregnancy.
A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision by “unelected old men.”
Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed “judicial restraint” and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions.
“The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process,” she said.
Ginsburg told students at Harvard earlier this year that Roe should have been argued incrementally.
Killing babies extreme? Well, that's one word for it.
I wouldn't want to be near either one on that day...
Where can I look up the CEP of lightning..??
The old witch is right. Too bad, you called down the thunder.
She’s right about over-reaching, (how about NOT found in the Constitution?) but her reasons are SICK-KEN-NING.
Hey look it’s Ginsburg what do you expect? Sanity? Reason? With half these libs I expect spontaneous human combustion.
LOL..
Exactly.
bump
Note that nothing Ginsburg had to say had anything whatsoever to do with the Constitution.
Remember McCain saying that we need to “repeal” Roe v. Wade, after we have the systems in place to take care of all the unwanted babies? What a maroon! Doesn’t even know that the Supreme Court IS a court, not a legislature. (Of course, the progs turned it into a legislature decades ago.)
Remember when Ginsburg told the Washington Post that she was surprised that Roe was decided on the grounds of a “right to privacy” and “women’s rights”—when her understanding of the purpose of legalizing abortion was to reduce the number of blacks and other inferior people?
She didn’t put it quite that way—but the meaning was clear. Straight out of Margaret Sanger.
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.