On the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade

[Jroc]

Even Abortion Backers Admit Roe vs. Wade Was a Terrible Decision

Even many scholars sympathetic to the results of Roe have issued harsh criticisms of its legal reasoning. In the Yale Law Journal, eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, complained that Roe is “bad constitutional law, or rather … it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” He wrote:

“What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded … a protection more stringent, I think it is fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interests that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe … is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

Below are criticisms of Roe from other supporters of legal abortion.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General“

t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor

“Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

Even Abortion Backers Admit Roe vs. Wade Was a Terrible Decision | LifeNews.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

A few feel that way, I am sure.

Millions and millions more regret their votes for Bush.

 

[jillian]

I'm wondering why the continuous spamming of this thread by angry men. The right isn't going away because you're making a lot of noise.

 

[thanatos144]

I'm wondering why the continuous spamming of this thread by angry men. The right isn't going away because you're making a lot of noise.

Again you ignorant hag.....Abortion isnt a right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS says you are wrong, thanatos.

 

[jillian]

I'm wondering why the continuous spamming of this thread by angry men. The right isn't going away because you're making a lot of noise.

Again you ignorant hag.....Abortion isnt a right.

why are you on this thread?

you clearly have nothing to offer.

you clearly know nothing...

so what's the point?

now please educate yourself. because right now, you're just an embarrassment to yourself and anyone who thinks like you:

From Roe v Wade:

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Roe v. Wade

twit.

 

[jillian]

SCOTUS says you are wrong, thanatos.

he knows he's wrong.

he doesn't care.

he isn't here because he knows anything. he's here to disrupt and troll the thread... you know, like the (mostly male) anti-choice activists do in real life... to real women... though in real life, they manage to disrupt the ability of real women to exercise their rights.

here, i couldn't care less what the little twit thinks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

thanatos merely emotes.

 

[jillian]

thanatos merely emotes.

i think you mean 'tantrums'... common affliction among the more ignorant posters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He surely gets excited and stupidly so.

 

[P@triot]

I'm wondering why the continuous spamming of this thread by angry men. The right isn't going away because you're making a lot of noise.

Jillian - how is it "spamming" to dispute misinformation with facts? Why aren't you angry as the men here that people are killing babies?

Lastly, as thenatos pointed out already, abortion is not a right. It's just a fact. You won't find it anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.

 

[P@triot]

SCOTUS says you are wrong, thanatos.

he knows he's wrong.

he doesn't care.

he isn't here because he knows anything. he's here to disrupt and troll the thread... you know, like the (mostly male) anti-choice activists do in real life... to real women... though in real life, they manage to disrupt the ability of real women to exercise their rights.

here, i couldn't care less what the little twit thinks.

He's not wrong. Can you or the junior high boy over there show me where abortion is a "right"? Please direct me to the legal document which has officially added abortion as a "right" along side of free speech and bearing arms?

Furthermore, what your pal from junior high over there doesn't understand is the the Supreme Court (like all courts) is not empowered to make law from the bench. Period. Laws are made by the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. While we would expect a junior high student to not be aware of this (thanks to our atrocious liberal education system), one would expect an attorney of all people to know this fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, he is wrong. Yes, Rott is wrong. SCOTUS rules on all of this, not a reactionary Rott typing from the basement. Good heavens.

 

[jillian]

SCOTUS says you are wrong, thanatos.

he knows he's wrong.

he doesn't care.

he isn't here because he knows anything. he's here to disrupt and troll the thread... you know, like the (mostly male) anti-choice activists do in real life... to real women... though in real life, they manage to disrupt the ability of real women to exercise their rights.

here, i couldn't care less what the little twit thinks.

He's not wrong. Can you or the junior high boy over there show me where abortion is a "right"? Please direct me to the legal document which has officially added abortion as a "right" along side of free speech and bearing arms?

Furthermore, what your pal from junior high over there doesn't understand is the the Supreme Court (like all courts) is not empowered to make law from the bench. Period. Laws are made by the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. While we would expect a junior high student to not be aware of this (thanks to our atrocious liberal education system), one would expect an attorney of all people to know this fact.

i've already linked you to the supreme court decision... and the words of justice blackmun. that is the law of the land.

if you don't understand that, i can't help you.

yes... all the horrible liberal things i learned in law school... the nerve of them to teach us that the purpose of the constitution was ultimately individual liberty.. but not about not having to pay for healthcare... ABOUT NOT HAVING GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN OUR MOST INTIMATE MORAL DECISIONS.

the horror....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SCOTUS says you are wrong, thanatos.

he knows he's wrong.

he doesn't care.

he isn't here because he knows anything. he's here to disrupt and troll the thread... you know, like the (mostly male) anti-choice activists do in real life... to real women... though in real life, they manage to disrupt the ability of real women to exercise their rights.

here, i couldn't care less what the little twit thinks.

He's not wrong. Can you or the junior high boy over there show me where abortion is a "right"? Please direct me to the legal document which has officially added abortion as a "right" along side of free speech and bearing arms?

Furthermore, what your pal from junior high over there doesn't understand is the the Supreme Court (like all courts) is not empowered to make law from the bench. Period. Laws are made by the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. While we would expect a junior high student to not be aware of this (thanks to our atrocious liberal education system), one would expect an attorney of all people to know this fact.

No, he is wrong, you are wrong as well:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married orsingle, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S., at 453 (emphasis in original). The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference…

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

As for your second paragraph, no one ever said the courts have the right to ‘legislate from the bench.’ The courts do have the right, however, to review acts of Congress, or acts by the states, to determine their constitutionality, as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review. Laws placing an undue burden with regard to a women’s right to privacy concerning accessing abortion services are consequently invalid.

 

[P@triot]

he knows he's wrong.

he doesn't care.

he isn't here because he knows anything. he's here to disrupt and troll the thread... you know, like the (mostly male) anti-choice activists do in real life... to real women... though in real life, they manage to disrupt the ability of real women to exercise their rights.

here, i couldn't care less what the little twit thinks.

He's not wrong. Can you or the junior high boy over there show me where abortion is a "right"? Please direct me to the legal document which has officially added abortion as a "right" along side of free speech and bearing arms?

Furthermore, what your pal from junior high over there doesn't understand is the the Supreme Court (like all courts) is not empowered to make law from the bench. Period. Laws are made by the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. While we would expect a junior high student to not be aware of this (thanks to our atrocious liberal education system), one would expect an attorney of all people to know this fact.

i've already linked you to the supreme court decision... and the words of justice blackmun. that is the law of the land.

if you don't understand that, i can't help you.

yes... all the horrible liberal things i learned in law school... the nerve of them to teach us that the purpose of the constitution was ultimately individual liberty.. but not about not having to pay for healthcare... ABOUT NOT HAVING GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN OUR MOST INTIMATE MORAL DECISIONS.

the horror....

1.) I asked where it was a RIGHT - not a Supreme Court decision (still waiting)

2.) The judicial branch does not make law. How is it that you are incapable of comprehending that very simple fact?

3.) If you're suddenly so for "individual liberty" (which is comical), how can you support the federal government forcing me to purchase health insurance? I guess you don't care about my liberty because I'm an "evil" male, uh? Only women deserve liberty?

4.) If you're suddenly so for "individual liberty" (which is comical), how can you support abortion? Where is the baby's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

5.) Why can't you address my points in an adult debate? Why do you redirect? I ask a fair question (with no personal attacks) about where/when did abortion become a "right" and you talk about a Supreme Court decision (as if a SCOTUS decision somehow makes things "rights" ).

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Immaterial. Shut up and sit down.

2. Agreed. However, it does review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and the states per Article III.

3. Read Roberts' majority opinion in the ACA case.

4. Read the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

5. Your opinions, your morality, will never override the acts of competent legislatures and the decisions of competent courts

 

[P@triot]

he knows he's wrong.

he doesn't care.

he isn't here because he knows anything. he's here to disrupt and troll the thread... you know, like the (mostly male) anti-choice activists do in real life... to real women... though in real life, they manage to disrupt the ability of real women to exercise their rights.

here, i couldn't care less what the little twit thinks.

He's not wrong. Can you or the junior high boy over there show me where abortion is a "right"? Please direct me to the legal document which has officially added abortion as a "right" along side of free speech and bearing arms?

Furthermore, what your pal from junior high over there doesn't understand is the the Supreme Court (like all courts) is not empowered to make law from the bench. Period. Laws are made by the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. While we would expect a junior high student to not be aware of this (thanks to our atrocious liberal education system), one would expect an attorney of all people to know this fact.

No, he is wrong, you are wrong as well:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married orsingle, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S., at 453 (emphasis in original). The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference…

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

As for your second paragraph, no one ever said the courts have the right to ‘legislate from the bench.’ The courts do have the right, however, to review acts of Congress, or acts by the states, to determine their constitutionality, as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review. Laws placing an undue burden with regard to a women’s right to privacy concerning accessing abortion services are consequently invalid.

You claim I am "wrong" and then cite a Supreme Court decision...

Rights do not come from Supreme Court decisions. They are found in the U.S. Constitution and can only be altered through the proper amendment process.

Your ignorance of your own government is equal parts frightening and sad...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answered in #77 above.

 

[P@triot]

As for your second paragraph, no one ever said the courts have the right to ‘legislate from the bench.’ The courts do have the right, however, to review acts of Congress, or acts by the states, to determine their constitutionality, as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review. Laws placing an undue burden with regard to a women’s right to privacy concerning accessing abortion services are consequently invalid.

You get scarier with each post. First you claim that the Supreme Courts decision is "law" and then here you claim (accurately, for once) that the courts do not have the right to legislate for the bench.

Well, since Congress did not pass a law making abortion legal, what exactly did the Supreme Court do in Roe vs. Wade if not "make law from the bench"?

Furthermore, Congress cannot outlaw nor legalize abortion because it is not a federal issue. The federal government has zero authority on abortion. It is a state issue. The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states and regulating abortion is not one of them.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 84