Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
It's why we have SCOTUS judges. They are not supposed to be swayed by what a majority of Americans want. They are supposed to "interpret" the Constitution, not public opinion. Roe v. Wade should be overturned, not because abortion is bad or good, but because the federal government has no actual constitutional power to forbid abortion nor to legalize it.
As far as stare decisis is concerned, that should not apply to precedents that are unconstitutional. It is precisely destructive of the Constitution to load it with unconstitutional precedent. And it is precisely for that reason that unconstitutional precedent should be struck down. If precedent creates permanent "settled law," then we would still have slavery. Amendments and Supreme Court cases overturned several supposedly "settled laws," and rightly so.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not put an end to abortion. Constitutionally, the legality of abortion rests with the states. The women You trust on earth to make that decision would have the opportunity, state by state, to help decide it. It is very probable that a majority, maybe a large one, of States will legally allow abortion. For women in states where the people vote against legalization, there will be many choices of where to legally get an abortion.