"Baloney."
Yeah...thought that might be a foreign concept.
Bottom line is protection of life and liberty is not judicial activism. It is American goverment's RESPONSIBILITY and it's only function.
As far as Judge G's comment stating the constitution is whatever the SC says it is is ass backward. You modify the laws to fit the constitution, not the constitution to fit the laws.
That's exactly right. You do realize that R v W was decided on a law in Texas and an activist court ruled that Texas law was unconstitutional and therefore all state abortion laws were unconstitutional? That was a direct abridging of the constitutional protections of the 10th amendment. For a conservative activist court to overturn R v W without sending it back to the states then it would be guilty of the same damned thing. That has been Bush's "litmus test" all along. Not a court that slashes and burns "liberal courts" past decisions but places the interpretations of constitutionality back within the parameters of the constitution as it reads today NOT how it read before the ink was dry. Much of the judicial activism we see today is a direct results of several subsequent amendments far after the original. To actually get back to "original intent" then we have to repeal at least half of the constitutional amendments in place now.