“The Constitution requires equal protection for the right to life of every person, not “reduced” numbers of immoral, unconstitutional killings.”
The Constitution requires a lot of things. For example it requires the courts to interpret the law and the President to enforce the law.
“And the idea that you reduce the numbers of those being butchered by giving up every decent moral, constitutional and legal argument against the killing has always been a cruel farce anyhow.”
Only in the twilight zone. If a law is passed which reduces the number of abortions by 10,000,000 then you’ve saved 10,000,000 lives.
Incremental change can work both ways if you use it. Trying to hit a home run every single time you’re at bat is a sure way to lose the game.
Typical modern total misunderstanding of our form of government.
The courts are empowered to make decisions in individual cases that come before them, but only according to the Constitution and to all constitutionally-valid laws that have been duly passed by the Congress. They do not have legitimate authority to interpret the Constitution for the officers of any other branch of government, or to dictate its meaning to them. That is up to the officers of the other branches, since such interpretation is absolutely necessary if they are ever to fulfill their own sworn oaths, and to, if necessary, provide a check and balance against one or more of the other branches.
But, I will say, you will make a fine Romney Republican, since he thinks the courts make laws, and thinks that we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of in a constitutional republic.