|
I'm for both the ability for the Supreme Court to make prudent and up-to-date decisions so long as they fall within an honest interpretation of the law AND the ability of we the people to override laws in the interest of justice as jurors. I don't lose any sleep over it because I don't see the positions as contradictory.
Here's the thing: Roe v. Wade is basically the most known court case in the history of the Supreme Court, right? According to your understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade couldn't really happen. We'd need an amendment, but we don't have the votes, which in that case would be tyranny of the majority.
|