[DoodleDawg]

The salient point here is that the court is wrong. The reasons for the Supreme Court being wrong may very, but the fact that they can be wrong demonstrates that one of their rulings is not proof that something is correct.

In your opinion.

Pointing out that they are wrong is not disrespect for the institution of the Judicial branch.

Claiming their decision is "victors justice" is, which is what jeffersondem and I disagreed on in the first place.

[DiogenesLamp]

In your opinion.

You are claiming that to point out the court is often wrong is an "opinion"?

I would put it into the category of verified fact, and that based on your acknowledgment that Roe v Wade is wrong.

Claiming their decision is "victors justice" is, which is what jeffersondem and I disagreed on in the first place.

I had not gotten that far down the road on the point to which I wanted you to focus.

First we establish that the Court can be wrong. Then we can discuss how and why they are wrong.

I told you earlier that I had not contemplated the "Victor's Justice" aspect of Roe v Wade, and at the time I hadn't. Now that you've suggested this might have been my motive, it occurs to me that Roe v Wade can be regarded in this light.

Roe v Wade is part of a long series of idiot decisions by the Courts after Roosevelt and Truman had 16 years to stack the courts with Liberal kooks.

So in a manner, Roe v Wade is indeed a consequence of "Victor's Justice." Roosevelt and Truman won, so they got Kook Liberal judges onto all the courts, and we've been living with the consequences of this "Victor's Justice" on all sorts of idiot decisions by the courts ever since, Wickard among them.