Replies

I agree, but I also think most of the pro-life movement (or the property rights movement or the second amendment backers or whatever the issue may be) are politically savvy enough to realize that SCOTUS would require a pertinent case in order to reverse a previous ruling. You have envisioned Roe v. Wade being done to death in a piecemeal fashion and that tends to be the case (we'll stick with abortion since it was your original example, but it could as easily apply to any "established" precedential activist ruling). But it could also come in dramatic fashion, for example, if a state legislature outlaws abortion completely. Such a law was up for consideration in one of the Dakotas, I believe, last year. At the time, I felt strongly that it was the wrong time to do it in that manner, since with the current composition of SCOTUS, it would simply result in a reaffirmation of Roe. Even with O'Connor retiring, and, with any luck and some Republican Senatorial backbone, an originalist appointed to replace her, it would still be a 5-4 reaffirmation. However, should the current rumor mill be correct and we have 3 appointments (for O'Connor, Rehnquist and Ginsberg or Stevens) and the appointment and confirmation of 3 originalists, it might result in a 5-4 reversal. However, the rumor mill is also speculating that Gonzales would be the 3rd pick (on the basis that the conservatives would be satisfied with 2 originalists and a good buddy appointment). With Gonzales, I think we'd still have 5-4 for reaffirming Roe.

You make a good point, but I don't think we know how Gonzales would vote as a SC Justice. But considering his past decisions in Texas on Parental Notification, I would guess he he believes that the Constitution says the right to an Abortion is covered under the 14th Amendment. So if I was doing the nominating, I would not choose Gonzales for that ruling alone.

I believe every SC Justice should be an originalist and ever Policy decision should never be accepted by the Supreme Court unless a lower Court's decision is unconstitutional. The notion that the Constitution is a "Living, Breathing" Document that is subject to interpretation on the basis of evolving standards of decency is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.

When I sign a legally binding contract, the terms of that contract are not open to a different interpretation because the interest rate has changed. All parties must renegotiate a new contract, a lawyer can't simply dictate them