3 ms·
"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.
by cityofdelusion 4y ago
"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.
- sg47 4y agoWould rogue be more acceptable?
- chmod600 4y agoA majority can't really be "rogue" either.
- pohl 4y agoWhatever one thinks of the legal grounding of the Roe decision, those criticisms pale in comparison to throwing stare decisis out the window and trying to make an enumerated-rights argument without even addressing the 9th amendment[1] in the room. Charitable descriptions are, at this point, unmerrited. [1]"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
- chmod600 4y agoSCOTUS hasn't used the ninth amendment much, and it wasn't the basis for Roe (though I think RBG would have preferred that it was). I think intellectual honesty would lead most people to think that Roe had to go. The only question was: do we fix it with better reasoning (if some Constitutional basis does exist), or throw it out. Casey tried to do the former but didn't quite seem to do it. So now it's gone and left to the states. I suspect only a few states will go extreme. And they'll have to see the consequences and try to make it work, or answer to the electorate.