OK, here goes - Roe is a decided and confirmed case, the same way that Dred Scott was. There's little to no debate about that. You may disagree with the decision and find it morally abhorent, but it is the governing precendent for quite a few decisions over the last 30 years or so. Could it be creative - certainly. That doesn't change its status.
That said, personally I find it ironic that the far right screams and yells about "activist judges" and how they create law out of nothing, and now they are looking to SCOTUS to be a bunch of activists and overturn Roe on the new SD abortion law. Scalia and Thomas may be a bunch of things, but activist they are not. I admire Scalia for his willingness to be a strict constructionist (Thomas on the other hand is a lot like the bully's toady in "A Christmas Story" who runs off to tell his dad while the bully's getting beaten up by Ralphie). To get Scalia (and Thomas with him) to overturn Roe, someone's going to have to give a pretty compelling reason to do it. I haven't seen anything in this particular case to give any reason to cut back on this particular privacy issue.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|