[PhiKapMom]

Very well stated but some folks on here cannot get it through their brains that getting rid of Roe V. Wade is being done in increments and will never happen in one ruling. They cannot see the forest for the trees IMHO!

[MJY1288]

It's really quite simple if we think like Justice Scalia does, He says we must change the laws by persuading Congress to do what the founders entrusted them with. If the Constitution needs to be amended, than we must do so by the normal process and not some activist SC Judge making the crap up out of thin air. I'm not in favor of adopting the unconstitutional practices the RATS have been using to bypass the Public.

This is why I would not want to see a Judge Moore on the Court

[Texasforever]

In the first place, you could have 9 clones of Clarance Thomas on the court and they could not just decide on their own to overturn R v W. They must have a case based on R v W to adjudicate before any action could be taken. That is where true "strict-constructionists" come in. If the case turns on the 10th amendment rights of the individual states to decide the issue then a "strict-constructionist" court would be well within constitutional powers to overturn R v W and send it back to the states. However, if the argument is that abortion is murder and should be banned in all states then it would take an "activist conservative" court to overturn R v W. It may be the right thing to do BUT it would still be judicial activism.