[JoeFromSidney]

It's worth noting that Abraham Lincoln's response to questions about the Dred Scott decision was, "We believe it was wrong and will work to get it changed."

We shouldn't have to amend the Constitution every time the Supreme Court botches a decision.

[gondramB]

>>We shouldn’t have to amend the Constitution every time the Supreme Court botches a decision.<<

I’ve been thinking about this.

I believe there is a right to privacy but that it does not include the right to kill your child. (tempting though that me be after the age of 15). Since the right to privacy lives in many parts of the Constitution and congress can’t simply change one part, the Supreme Court needs reverse Roe v Wade. There’s really no other way to clean up the judicial precedents set by the Court in Roe, if you believe like I do.

Now, a different conservative might disagree with me. He may think privacy is not one of the non-enumerated Federal rights. He might need more than simply reversing Row to feel a win - He may feel the Supreme Court needs its scope reduced in one of the two legal ways - law or amendment.

I don’t think its so much that I’m right or that he is right but rather point our points of view are both reasonable depending on whether you think privacy is a Federal right.