Replies

"The Constitution is our home turf. All we need is for the game to be played there, not at the liberal home field of judicial activism, which should be imploded like Cinergy Field. Because if we keep that field around for our own agenda, sooner or later the libs will get it back."

Maybe you can help me out here. I'm certainly not a Constitutional Scholar (don't even play one on TV) - yet I've thrown around terms (like judicial activism, strict-constructionist, etc.) that I may not be totally familiar with.

My question to you (or anyone else who cares to respond) is this: "Judicial Activism" in 1973 gave us the abominable ROE V. WADE which, we might all agree, was the antithesis of "Strict Construction". So, by virtue of that fact is ROE V. WADE now considered as much a part of the Constitution as, say, the Bill of Rights?

And would overturning it be an example of "judicial activism" or "strict-construction"?

(BTW, I think you were the one that made a statement earlier that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the abortion question would return to the States. Do you think that would be a bad thing? I don't.)

Under the way the current federal government views the way it has collectively usurped power, yes. Under a strict constitutionalist SCOTUS justice, he probably wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade per se, but wait for a case to come along that would accomplish that if decided along a Constitutionalist viewpoint. You just can't re-open an old SCOTUS decision - it will take years to get a case to SCOTUS, probably by a state outlawing or severely restriciting abortion, and then having the law work its way up through the appalleate system. So when folks talk about a nominee voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, they are vastly simplifying the process.

I didn't say that, but I do agree with you that it should be a state issue and as such would be a net positive.