Why I Voted For Trump...

[Terraceth]

Actually, Blackmun--the person who wrote the opinion--did pay attention to the polls concerning abortion, given that he had a copy of a poll in his files. It is not clear to what extent the other justices paid attention to such polls, but we know at least one--and the one who wrote the opinion, at that--was indeed taking it into account.

Roe v. Wade actually got a lot of heat from legal scholars at the time, John Hart Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" probably being the most notable.

*cough* Plessy vs Ferguson

I still hold that Plessy v. Ferguson relied better on precedent and was better reasoned than Roe v. Wade. While disagreeing with Plessy, Jamal Greene noted in his article "The Anticanon" that "Plessy was consistent with Court precedent, with the most defensible original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the text of the Equal Protection Clause." None of this can be stated in favor of Roe v. Wade.

(by the way, "The Anticanon", available here, is a spectacular article that goes into detail concerning the background and reasoning of the most notorious Supreme Court decisions--specifically Scott, Plessy, Lochner, and Korematsu--along with thoughts as to why those decisions were the ones that got singled out as "the anticanon" rather than others. It's highly readable and is fascinating, and despite not agreeing with everything it has to say, I heartily recommend it to everyone)

[Cow Poke]

Roe v. Wade actually got a lot of heat from legal scholars at the time, John Hart Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" probably being the most notable.

The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade

Again, the Honest pro-choicers admit Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision.

[NorrinRadd]

If we ignored the obvious moral implications, of abortion, the court should have kicked the issue to congress or the states.

That's not a small point, and I don't understand why conservatives often go to the "leave it to the States" position. The only reason to want to stop abortion is the belief that it is the intentional killing of a defenseless innocent human being. Why would we allow some States to decide it is permissible to murder those humans most deserving of protection?

[Tassman]

This known as an opinion.

[Cow Poke]

The opinions I cited were by legal experts based on actual expertise in constitutional law. Your opinions are simply based on "I want SO BADLY for this to be true".

No, Tassman, you're not smarter than the legal experts who show what a horrible decision Roe v Wade was on its merits.

Here, I'll tell you what.... find three top notch legal experts who defend RvW as based on sound law and Constitutional reason.

I'll wait.

[Terraceth]

Plessy v. Ferguson, which declared "separate but equal" constitutional (and accused blacks of inventing the idea it was made to make them feel inferior), was an 8-1 decision.

Buck v. Bell, which ruled that forced sterilization is a constitutional punishment, was an 8-1 decision.

Pace v. Alabama, which declared that laws prohibiting miscenegation relationships were constitutional, was a unanimous decision.

Can you stop acting as if a 7-2 decision somehow makes it sacrosanct? Heck, the last time the court explicitly revisited the question of overturning it, it was only a 5-4 decision that kept it around.

[Cow Poke]

Plessy v. Ferguson, which declared "separate but equal" constitutional (and accused blacks of inventing the idea it was made to make them feel inferior), was an 8-1 decision.

Buck v. Bell, which ruled that forced sterilization is a constitutional punishment, was an 8-1 decision.

Pace v. Alabama, which declared that laws prohibiting miscenegation relationships were constitutional, was a unanimous decision.

Can you stop acting as if a 7-2 decision somehow makes it sacrosanct? Heck, the last time the court explicitly revisited the question of overturning it, it was only a 5-4 decision that kept it around.

The other thing he does is express his notion that even those who agree that it was a horrible decision still agree with the outcome. He can't seem to allow himself to see that those are two different things.

Laws often get overturned because they were fundamentally flawed, regardless of how much we wish the decision was a good one.

[JimL]

The other thing he does is express his notion that even those who agree that it was a horrible decision still agree with the outcome. He can't seem to allow himself to see that those are two different things.

Laws often get overturned because they were fundamentally flawed, regardless of how much we wish the decision was a good one.

Just because some Constitutional scholars may disagree with the reasoning given for the Roe v Wade decision, doesn't make the reasoning wrong. There are obviously those scholars who agree with the reasoning, 7 of them in fact on that particular court at the time.

[Tassman]

The opinions I cited were by legal experts based on actual expertise in constitutional law.

The actual that matters, is that vested in the Justices of the Supreme Court. And the Roe v. Wade ruling by this court affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.

No, Tassman, you're not smarter than the legal experts who show what a horrible decision Roe v Wade was on its merits.

[rogue06]

The other thing he does is express his notion that even those who agree that it was a horrible decision still agree with the outcome. He can't seem to allow himself to see that those are two different things.

Laws often get overturned because they were fundamentally flawed, regardless of how much we wish the decision was a good one.

Many on the left see any decision they disagree with, whether legislative or judicial, to be fought tooth and nail until they get a outcome they like and then that is therefore set in stone never to be challenged

[JimL]

Many on the left see any decision they disagree with, whether legislative or judicial, to be fought tooth and nail until they get a outcome they like and then that is therefore set in stone never to be challenged

Project much?

[Cow Poke]

The actual that matters, is that vested in the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Last I checked, every single member of the Supreme Court is or has been a human, and subject to error.

And the Roe v. Wade ruling by this court affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.

Here's what you seem incapable of understanding, Tass - they INVENTED that "right" - it is found nowhere in the US Constitution.

There WERE (past tense) differences of opinion? No, Tassman -- there are many liberals today who, when they are being honest, STILL say that RvW was a horrible decision. All you're doing now is repeating the same old crap over and over, apparently thinking that makes it true.

[Cow Poke]

Many on the left see any decision they disagree with, whether legislative or judicial, to be fought tooth and nail until they get a outcome they like and then that is therefore set in stone never to be challenged

EGGzackly, which is why the emphasis is on HONEST liberals who look at it and see it as a horrible decision.

[Tassman]

Last I checked, every single member of the Supreme Court is or has been a human, and subject to error.

Here's what you seem incapable of understanding, Tass - they INVENTED that "right" - it is found nowhere in the US Constitution.

There WERE (past tense) differences of opinion? No, Tassman -- there are many liberals today who, when they are being honest, STILL say that RvW was a horrible decision.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade, according to most legal analysts.

EGGzackly, which is why the emphasis is on HONEST liberals who look at it and see it as a horrible decision.

"HONEST liberals" being those that agree with you, of course.

[Cow Poke]

"Humans" can be wrong in great numbers.

And, once again, the majority can be wrong. Even Supreme court justices, as has been demonstrated with numerous examples which you ignore.

OTOH your "opinion" is less concerned with the Constitution per se than an attempt to implement your religious agenda.

There you go again, losing an argument, so you resort to your incredible inability to read minds.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade, according to most legal analysts.

I never said otherwise, in spite of it being a HORRIBLE decision by legal standards, which any honest liberal would concede.

"HONEST liberals" being those that agree with you, of course.

Nope - liberals with whom I would probably disagree on 90% of what they believe, but they're HONEST enough to admit RvW was a horrible decision, as I have documented.