Posted on 12/01/2021 7:11:28 AM PST by karpov
The Supreme Court takes up its most important abortion case in years on Wednesday, and the question will be how the Justices maneuver their way out of a thicket they should never have entered 50 years ago. Will the Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, settle for an incremental ruling that upholds a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks, or will it overturn its misguided precedents and return the regulation of abortion to legislatures in the states?
These columns have long supported a policy of legal abortion before viability, albeit uneasily as technology has revealed the development of the fetus. But we have had no hesitation in saying that Roe v. Wade (1973) and its progeny, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), were wrongly decided. Abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and its regulation is a classic example of police powers reserved for the states.
Roe in particular is one of the worst decisions in the Court’s history, on par with Plessy v. Ferguson (“separate but equal” on race) and Korematsu (internment camps for Japanese-Americans). At a stroke, the Court overturned 50 state laws and turned abortion into a pitched political battle that nonetheless could not be settled politically through the ballot box.
As the great legal scholar Alexander Bickel wrote in “The Morality of Consent,” the Court simply invented a trimester medical analysis. “One is left to ask why. The Court never said. It refused the discipline to which its function is properly subject. It simply asserted the result it reached.”
That mistake has distorted American politics and law for a half century. It has heightened political polarization and made the Supreme Court a partisan battlefield. With nowhere else to turn, abortion foes have looked to the Court for redress
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
There is What Should Happen, based on the Constitution and law, and then there is What Will Happen, which is no change.
As cynical about everything to do with Government (big G), i don’t see anything changing for the better. I see Clarence Thomas writing a brilliant dissent. And the rest of them will go off and powder their noses.
Smoke and mirrors show. “Prove me wrong”.
Congress should have the courage to change the law. Instead, fearing their next election, those cowards toss it to the black robed tyrants to decide, thereby covering their congressional backsides. We are not a nation to be ruled by nine judges.
Addendum: There will be no disappointment, because there is no expectation. It would be an aberration to think otherwise.
.... or, another glaring reason why the WSJ and the entire DC-birthed neocon enterprise is and always was a total fraud.
The Wall Street Journal:
Pro legalized murder, for almost 50 years.
“These columns have long supported a policy of legal abortion before viability, albeit uneasily as blah blah blah.”
According to Science (both top embryologists, and Intro to Biology 101) the life of a zebra (or a giraffe, or a hippo, or a human being) begins “when the sperm fuses with the ovum to form a new complex with distinctive DNA, that proceeds to florish and grow in a continuum. in other words, human life begins at conception, a hard scientific fact.
Thus the Wall Street Journal says its okay to kill some humans on a whim. To the Wall Street Journal, some humans have no rights whatsoever. Whatever.
But what does the Constitution of the United States of America say?
It says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws.
That means, obviously, that the laws that protect us against premeditated murder must be enforced with full force against one who procures, performs, or assists in any abortion.
Anyone disagree?
Perhaps Roe v. Wade will be overturned once black people figure out that this is why the Republican Party has publicly opposed abortion for decades but never seems to get around to doing anything about it even when the GOP is in full control of Congress and the White House.
Scholars, ‘legal experts,’ wonks and nitwits can pontificate and opine about the Constitution and ‘precedent’ all they want. Whether ‘long-established’ or not, NOTHING is permanent when the Constitution itself allows a USSC court to reverse itself. If they want it (Roe) to be irreversible, then they can go try for an amendment to the US Constitution. Good luck [See Equal Rights Amendment].
It has happened before and will happen again. The abortionists think because one court ceded to murderous doctrine that all eternity is bound by it as if the abortionist came down off the mountain with is scribed in stone tablets.
Oral arguments going on now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRe4mYcEqBM
Sotomayor compared a brain dead person to an unborn baby. What a POS.
As far as “long term precedent”, there was a time in this country when slavery was a long term precedent.
A better comparison would have been to an unconscious person, say after a bad car accident injury. I mean, both unconscious and unborn people become conscious if you just wait a while. If you don’t kill them first.
Anyhow, Justice Sotomayor could have said that the Constitution says you can kill an unconscious person, just like you can kill an unborn person. Its because of equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment
The irony of Black Lives Matter is when the choice is made that not all black lives matter.
Exactly. Leftists only cite “precedent” when it suits their goals. On the one hand they tout the “living Constitution” [actually wrong] when they want to grab guns, oppress one race because of the 400 years thing, or just let some tranny fondle your kids unimpeded, but on the other hand when their hallmarks are threatened they are sacrosanct and irreversible.
That looks good on paper, but isn't the way things are.
Unpopular decisions are taken up by willing courts and by willing bureaucracies.
Congress will protect this arrangement, it will limit its objection to words.
The Constitution does not address Abortion. The 10th Amendment outlaws the Roe vs Wade decision. Therefore it must be reversed.
10th AMENDMENT
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The wording and the intent of the 10th Amendment is and was clear in 1973.
The MS Solicitor General made a great point that there is no Constitutional right to kill a person. Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer are all gushing about “bodily autonomy” and “undue burden on woman”. Coney Barrett got a good dig in about the same case being made about vaccines.
Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch so far seem on board with siding with MS. All we need is one more.
A better comparison would have been to an unconscious person, say after a bad car accident injury. I mean, both unconscious and unborn people become conscious if you just wait a while. If you don’t kill them first.
Anyhow, Justice Sotomayor could have said that the Constitution says you can kill an unconscious person, just like you can kill an unborn person. Its because of equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment
If the Supreme Court does return the question of abortion to the states can a challenge to Obergfell v. Hodges be far behind?
All a person has to do is take a pill. You don’t have to rip out a living human being.
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.