Dear LtdGovt,
You appear to be arguing out of both sides of your keyboard.
On the one hand, you interpret Mr. Hunter's remarks as meaning that he believes that the Court should rule abortions unconstitutional.
In contrast, I showed that he's merely pointing out one that one of the necessary premises of Roe is false.
Thus, by appointing justices who believe the evidence of their eyes, that unborn children are human beings, he will be assured that they will overturn Roe, as one of its necessary premises will have been undone.
But you insist that he's implicitly going beyond that.
Yet, you argue that even should the humanity of unborn children be established, it still wouldn't be constitutional for the Court to ban abortion.
You need to decide which argument you wish to advance, as they are like horses that are going in divergent directions, and if you try to continue to ride both, you will likely lose a leg or something.
"The Constitution does not afford equal protection to those not born."
I know that no one has ever interpreted the Constitution thusly, but if the Court were to determine that the unborn child is, in fact, a human being, I think it isn't difficult to find an interpretation of the Constitution that would generally restrict abortion.
sitetest
Uhm, my position has remained consistent, no matter what your interpretation might be. Here's my position:
1. Roe v. Wade is bad law.
2. There are a lot of grounds on which Roe can be overturned, some of which Alito and Roberts subscribe to.
3. You end up supporting my point, that Hunter's requirement - for the justices to affirm the humanity of fetuses - would ultimately lead to judicial activism, namely, the overturning of liberal abortion laws.
4. My opinion is as follows: it should be up to the states to determine its policy regarding unborn life and abortion, not up to the court. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Court to make determinations about unborn life and impose them on the states.
I think you really weaken your own case against judicial activism, when it you reveal that you only actually suppport activism when you agree with the result. I'm sorry to say, cause you seem really friendly.
Perhaps ruling that a child that hasn't taken its first breath if in fact human, would redefine the very meaning of "born"?