Posted on 10/28/2008 6:52:57 PM PDT by markomalley
While conservatives worry about the kind of Supreme Court justices a President Obama might appoint, new questions about the rightness of the high court’s abortion rulings have arisen from within. In remarks last week at Princeton University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was highly critical of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which effectively allowed abortion on demand nationwide. She suggested the court had gone too far and that a more incremental decision “would have been an opportunity for a dialogue with the state legislators” and a chance for states to take the lead on the issue. Ginsburg also lamented the “rallying point” it provided for launching the pro-life movement. “I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman’s choice, but the court should not have done it all,” she said. But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Ginsburg is fully committed to unrestricted abortion, as seen in her strong dissent in the 2007 partial-birth abortion decision, Gonzales v. Carhart. “There, Ginsburg argues that the ‘right of privacy’ theory doesn't go far enough in protecting abortion, arguing a new theory that would result in all abortion regulations being struck down as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — a step even beyond Roe.” |
The Supreme Court never said abortion was "legal". The court went way, way beyond that and declared abortion a "Constitutional right". They based this ruling on an emanation from a penumbra. Almost everybody with the faintest of law backgrounds has been shaking their heads over that one for about 35 years.
Thios point can be seen as the whole reason for her comments.
Surely, she cannot actually mean what she seems to be saying about Roe v. Wade.
So, how did SHE vote???
But the average person out on the street thinks “legal” and doesn’t care about the details.
And anyone who thinks that Buzzi's seen the light or moved to the right should read Cicero's post #26. Her point is entirely political and pragmatic, not principled. She's only worried that R v. W awoke a sleeping giant, thereby getting the religious Right involved in the political process in a way they hadn't been before (a worry she shares with many a liberal Republican -- aka RINO).
Hmm. Sleeping Giant, Boiling Frog. Sounds like a weird Chinese movie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.