[Arthur McGowan]

The Supreme Court, precisely because it is a court, cannot act on its own initiative. What I meant was that the Court could not, tomorrow, simply announce that it wants to reverse a past decision. Neither would it ever announce how it is going to decide some future case--because how would you like to go before a judge who had already announced that he knew how he wanted your case to come out? What the Court CAN do is accept some future abortion case, and decide that case on the basis of the principle that there is no right to kill babies in the womb.

[wita]

and decide that case on the basis of the principle that there is no right to kill babies in the womb.

Thus in effect nullifying and or reversing the original decision, but only for that one case, and that is my problem or one of them with the way the court has positioned itself over the years, not as a judge of the law but in many cases, a maker of law, by virtue of it's interpretation.

I think what I would like to see the court do, if they can't see their way clear to nullify, than to at least apologize for keeping in effect a law they made, by unconstitutional means, which was made clearly based on false testimony as we have the retraction of that testimony in hand, and the court has never sought to hear the case after the retraction.

And as you have not quite said, "not in a million, zillion, years will we ever hear such an apology, but if we do we will know the court is on the right track.