From the school paper, The Princetonian,
When asked about the discrepancy between her support of a woman’s right to choose and her disapproval of Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to legalized abortion in 1973, Ginsburg said that she was surprised by “how far the court had gone [in this decision].”
“It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to say that the extreme cases are unconstitutional” without broadening the decision to the 50 states.
Ginsburg said that the abruptness of the decision, which declared many state statutes unconstitutional, created a “perfect rallying point” for people who disagreed with the notion that abortion should be a woman’s choice. She added that the decision may have also stifled dialogue with state legislatures.
“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.
She added that in the absence of a sweeping decision like Roe, it is possible that abortion rights legislation would have evolved organically in the same way that no-fault divorce laws have.
Unfortunately, she's probably right: the frog-boiling argument would have likely taken hold had Roe not been decided in the manner it was. (If you want to boil a frog, you don't dump it in a pot of boiling water as it will jump out. Rather, you put it in a pot of cold water and turn the heat up gradually. By the time it realizes the water is boiling, it's already cooked)
pro-life/ moral absolutes ping for your lists
Knock me over with a feather.
Right to privacy has nothing to do with right to kill....I am sure Blackmun is in purgatory right now for a long, long time and grieving for all the babies he has caused to die.......
I could believe because just 10-15 years ago there were liberal legal scholars who would (and could) admit that Roe was bad case law, even if the outcome was what was wanted.
Maybe she’s getting ready to die and trying to cover all contingencies with a little fire insurance. Wouldn’t be the first time a heathen contemplating a dirt nap has found a little regret or repentence when facing the real consequences of eternity.
She’s not critizing the result, mind you. Just the process.
In other words “I like it; but not how I, Queen Ginsburg, would do it.”
Actually, can’t say I’m surprised. Most judges with whom I have conversed over the years, even the liberal ones, while they may be pro-choice, to a man/woman they feel the “penumbra of rights” extended the Bill of Rights a bit too far. The concern was that it may give rise to “other rights” that could be extreme or cause problems.
Bizzaro edge10 like Bizzaro Obama.
We are in the Bizzaro universe, right???!!!
This is simply a fake move by the Left, designed to affect this election.
So why does she keep voting to compound the problem?
Justice William H. Rehnquist, in dissent of Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Ginsburg’s concern is that the court decision violated left-wing strategy by creating a “rallying point”. The boiling a frog analogy is appropriate in this case. She merely thinks the heat was turned up too fast and the frog should have been cooked more slowly. She is still an unabashed supporter of murdering innocent children and only regrets the strategy used to advance that goal was violated and created resistance.
Ginsberg jukes right to affect the election. A temporary ploy from the most liberal judge EVER to be elected to the Supreme Court.
recriminations should focus on California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. This state was gradually moving toward a gay-marriage consensus. But it just wasn't there yet when George, in his own way, declared it's gonna happen, whether you like it or not.
I found George's legal reasoning to be sound and persuasive. But given his past moderation and unadventurousness, his decisive vote to impose gay marriage on California was deeply uncharacteristic. It may well have been principled. Yet given George's history, it looks far more like posturing for the history books than anything else.
Sounds like someone is trying to get into heaven late.
Not everyone is reading it carefully. She’s not saying she regrets universal abortion on demand. She’s just saying that it might have been done more effectively by a more gradualist approach.
The problem with Roe v. Wade is not that it killed 50 million babies. The problem is that it energized the Right to Life movement.
What IS interesting is that she is as good as admitting what Democrats NEVER admit—that a majority of Americans are against abortion, even after SCOTUS laid down the law and thought that the issue had been settled.
Being pro-life is a winner at the polls. Palin doesn’t have to hide her views; Obama has to hide his.
She’s mentioned this before. Ruth B-G knows that Roe v. Wade was a leftist power grab wrapped in twisted legal logic. It’s a bit surprising she didn’t see the same in Kelo.
Evil old woman. I read that she also favors the age of consent for sexual relations be lowered to 12.