It was an example of the law profession’s views trumping the views of large swaths of the country. In that example, it was probably for the best, but you can hardly call it democratic.
I’m just arguing that that’s what the Court always does; imposes preferred, standardized values on the country. And right now, the values the Supreme Court are standardizing are those on sex and morality, including homosexuality.
Still a chance that Roe v Wade gets overturned. I don’t know why the legal thrust has never focused on the fraud involved in the original case—that there was no gang rape as the appelant Roe claimed.
Right now it would probably be Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts to overturn. Kagan, Soto, Breyer and Ginsburg naysayers, and, Kennedy gets to decide the fate of millions of unborn children.
Yes, I agree, the court has overstepped it’s boundaries for far too long.
I like what the Michigan State Supreme Court did in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan State v Sitz, allowing roadblocks to investigate a crime for which there was no probable cause to suspect those stopped.
They said “Fine, you can’t find the protection in the US Constitution, we find it in ours and to hell with your decision.” I suspect more state supreme courts could do this in various cases if they had the cajones.