[Tax-chick]

I think her remarks can be understood as meaning, not that Roe v. Wade should never be overruled, but that a Justice should not take his seat on the Court with the intention of finding an opportunity to overturn Roe. I would agree with that: it's a pretty standard view of judicial objectivity.

However, I disagree with her contention that a Justice's having the intention of "gunning" for Roe would be unConstitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a Justice to start from the assumption that all previous decisions are valid. Stare decisis is extra-Constitutional judicial philosophy ... as, indeed, is the whole concept of judicial review as practiced since Marbury v. Madison. We all (most all) accept it, but it's not in the text.

[JayGalt]

Good points. I think it would be wrong to select a Justice to “go after Roe Wade”.

Select a Justice that reveres and respects the Constitution and interprets it as it stands rather than torturing portions to allow a desired outcome. Then it follows as the night the day that Roe Wad will be consigned to the dustbins of history and the decision will be returned to the States when a case is brought before them.

It also follows that there is no right to an abortion, no right to force another to commit an abortion on you, and no way that I or any other taxpayer should be paying for anyone else to commit this barbarous act on a living feeling unborn child for anyone that upholds the Constitution.