I believe that we all have rights which constitutes opinions. I also don't believe abortion should be a default option. However,life doesn't allow that. We all encounter negative life experiences. Should we all be punished for that? Does a man know what a woman experiences when she is confronted with a pregnancy? And for that matter does the religious right compensate for the babies born that no one wants? Tell me, what do you propose to take care of the babies that are saved by an anti-Roe vs. Wade decision? The government can't even distribute the tax dollars appropriately. How can they advocate life and how we should live it? Should anyone have the right to tell us what is proper procedure?

Yeah, this post is some nonsense. The president is supposed to pick the Supreme Court. That's one of his most important jobs.

Also, it's not "stacking" the court or shoving conservative philosophy down anyone's throat. Generally, conservative jurisprudence just means reading what the constitution actually says.

It's all these years of "liberal" judges that have been doing the shoving. They pulled Roe v Wade entirely out of their asses. They just made up a law, and imposed it on everyone else absolutely arbitrarily and by fiat.

Leaving the legislating to the legislative branch as conservative constructionist judges would do does not constitute imposing your personal ideologies on the nation. NOT making laws from the bench does not constitute making up laws at all.

Al would have us believe that the rulings that eventually went to support Roe-v-Wade were pulled out of some particular orifice... Al might want to check his... He might also want to study the development of the laws that lead upto that decision. It was not something decided on overnight... In some bathroom.

Also the assumption that "conservative" judges simply rule on what's "in the Constitution" is absurdly naive. It was "conservative" Supreme Court justices in the late 19th and early 20th century that constantly ruled in FAVOR of big business... Their "rulings" sure as hell weren't found IN the Constitution - the Founding Fathers didn't have a crystal ball that told them what conditions would exist 170+ years later - which is why THEY DID create the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL branches to begin with... Had matters been left as they were judged by those conservative justices there would be no minumum wages today. There would still exist a 60 hour work week for most people. Child labor laws may not have come to have the teeth the do today. Businesses would NOT be held liable for injuries to their workers... I could go on and on...

Al, you might want to take a few courses in the history of Constitutional Law... I could help since I used to teach it...

I am concerned about the make-up of the Court as well: overturning Roe v. Wade would be disastrous, but it isn't going to happen.

For a look at REAL court-stacking, look at the efforts of FDR, not his finest moment.

Eric, a serious question: why do you think that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned? If Bush ends up putting even two Scalia-Thomas-like judges on the Court, then Roe is in serious danger, don't you think? Pro-life groups will simply continue to barrage the courts with challenges until a case reaches the SC. I would be very surprised if the "future" court turned down the case.

I've heard lots of social moderates who voted for Bush say the same thing as you. In fact, a friend and I made a bet about it. I don't want to win the bet, but I think I actually will.

bhw, two things: precedent, the Court is very hesitant to overturn precedent, which on abortion is now well-established; support, the majority of the country, including Republicans, favors access to legal abortion - the court may pretend otherwise but it is very much aware of public opinion, especially if it would involve overturning precedent

Roe v Wade absolutely will be overturned, as well it should be. Despite the condescending response from Alethinos, there is not one damned thing in the US Constitution saying anything about abortion. They did in fact pretty much make it up in the bathroom.

If the US Constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government to do something, then according to the Bill of Rights they can't do it. Therefore, the federal government has NO legitimate legal authority to make laws about abortion. And if it DID, it would be the job of the legislature to make laws, not the courts.

Now, overturning Roe v Wade would not be any kind of disaster. It would simply kick abortion law down to the state level where it belongs. I doubt any state at this point would try to outlaw abortion. At worst, it might work out that women in two or three of the most conservative states would have to take a road trip if they want to kill their babies. I apologize in advance for the inconvenience.

I do get so sick of hearing pinkos bitching about the constitution, when really they don't believe in it. You decide on some public policy you want, then declare it a "right" and look for any way to impose it on the public that you can.

You give no significant regard to federalism, and the separation of powers which is the key genius part of the US Constitution- although you will feel free to invoke it if it suits you.

Do not take this as any endorsement of any and every supposed "conservative" judge or decision, but liberal judges ("moderates" in pinko parlance) love to just make up laws in contravention of any actual legal authority.

This is purely dictatorial- not democratic, and leads to a great deal of strife and damage to the body politic.

Al, I'm not sure of the exact wording of Roe v. Wade, but I thought the ruling wasn't so much that people have a right to have an abortion, but that people have a right to not have goverment determining what we can and can not do with our own bodies? That's the same concept that overturned sodomy laws, isn't it?

Do you, (or anybody else) know the exact rationale behind Roe v. Wade? Wasn't that it? If so, then overturning that will open the door for fundamentalists to attempt to pass laws regulating moral behavior with our own bodies. While that might throw it back down to the state level, I can see extremely horrid consequences beyond having to drive across a state line to have a baby. Also, keep in mind that a lot of women who have abortions, do so because they can't afford it. Therefore, they probably also won't be able to afford to drive across the state line, check into a motel, etc. which will result in a lot of backroom abortions in intolerant states.

The less prudent decisions of the "body politic" require judges to rectify them - I say hooray for activist judges.

Some issues are above federalism and should be uniform nation-wide (access to abortion is one of them), which the vast majority of the citizenry agrees with or else Libertarians would receive more than token support. I'll take the Warren court over the Rehnquist court and give you change back for these puds.

Roe v Wade will not be overturned. Remember who told you Bush was going to be reelected two years ago.

Remember who told you Bush was going to be reelected two years ago.

Ann Coulter?

I see how you are Eric. If it's something you think is important, screw all lines of jurisdiction and authority. I want what I want NOW.

Thing is, that works both ways. If that's how we're going to play, then the SCOTUS can just declare all abortions illegal, and screw any state that thinks otherwise. Then what are you going to do about it?

The courts do have legitimate authority to rectify some of the less prudent decisions of the body politic, particularly on the basis of the Bill of Rights. However, I would be real cautious of presuming to overrule the body politic over my own preferences.

Boom, I don't have a copy of the Roe decision in front of me, but I believe that one of the key phrases involved a "penumbra of privacy." Neither of those words appears in the US Constitution, however.

They basically widely extrapolated a "right" to abortion from no particular place in the Constitution. What specific part of the Constitution are they getting this from? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms?

Again, I'm opposed to sodomy laws, and (reluctantly) pro-choice. As a state legislator, I would probably be largely on your side.

Again though, HOW these things are decided is really, really important. The multi-layered separation of powers is the key innovation of our system, and the thing that does the most to keep us free.

Grasping at short term gains by doing damage to this system of checks and balances will absolutely come back to bite you in the ass.

They basically widely extrapolated a "right" to abortion from no particular place in the Constitution. What specific part of the Constitution are they getting this from? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms?

Well, much of the opposition to abortion seems to be motivated by religious reasoning, for instance the idea that life begins at conception. So, yeah, "freedom of religion".

You know Eric, I do tend to believe that you are right as far as The Roe vs. Wade decision is concerned. But, I see some disturbing trends arising that portend reactions from the Supreme Court if we continue to spiral down to the conservative level. I'm sure you have read of the recent decisions by some pharmacists in refusing to dispense birth control to women ( the only ones it seems that want to be responsible) who I am sure were single. Also, sorry to add another subject Eric, the desire of many Bible Belt states to include Creationism as a teachable subject in public schools. Now I believe that spirituality is very important, but I believe it is very personal and open to varied interpretation. I see these issues and more becoming overwhelming at the state level and eventually bubbling to the surface and being taken on by the Supreme Court. Anything is possible. Look who appointed the president in 2000.

Al, when you talk, I can't get beyond the comparison of those who want the bible interpreted literally, where there is no room for interpretation.

There are issues now, that our forefathers didn't foresee.

for any document to be considered "living" 200+ years after it was written will necessitate "interpretation" of intent, consideration of technological and informational progress, etc. The DMCA was written 6 years ago and it is already being "interpreted" in light of technological change.

The Founders would not recognize the U.S. as it stands today: do we stop history (as would fundamentalist Islam) or do we interpret our founding documents for the times?

A "living" constitution does not mean that courts and government at all levels just get to do whatever they like. In that case, it would in fact be a DEAD constitution, no longer in effect- a mere historical document.

The "living" part is that the document is open to revision. If you think that abortion should be a constitutional right, then start working up a coalition to convince congress and the state legislatures to make an amendment.

That's the difference between the Bible and the US Constitution. There's no method for amending the Bible, since it is supposedly the infallible word of God.

"Al, you might want to take a few courses in the history of Constitutional Law... I could help since I used to teach it..."

Since you claim to be a legal scholar, perhaps you should have noted that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would NOT outlaw abortion. It would merely allow the several states to decide how to deal with this issue through the democratic process.

And most states would likely still allow legal abortions. And those relatively few states that didn't would not have the power to punish those residents who traveled to a "pro-choice" state in order to receive their abortions.

"If Bush ends up putting even two Scalia-Thomas-like judges on the Court, then Roe is in serious danger, don't you think?"

Maybe. It depends on who they're replacing.

Replacing an anti-abortion judge with another anti-abortion judge does not have any effect on the court's balance regarding this issue.

"I thought the ruling wasn't so much that people have a right to have an abortion, but that people have a right to not have goverment determining what we can and can not do with our own bodies?"

Then why are drugs still illegal? And why can a 16-year old kill her fetus, and not have a beer or a smoke? (Or a joint?)

It's my understanding that drugs are illegal because someone on drugs loses their ability of rational thought and can pose a harm to others. I could be wrong, and it could be entirely moral based. In either case, I don't think there should be any laws against recreational drug use like marijuana.

I can't really rationalize the answers to your questions, RJ, because I don't really know, they do seem hypocritical.

The Framers' intent is clear in Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It's always ridiculous to see people try to claim that any right not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights is totally imaginary and must have arrived from an unspeakable orifice of an "activist judge," when the clear text of the Constitution itself says different.

Mr. Barger gives a revealing description of himself and his political allies on this issue: "If it's something you think is important, screw all lines of jurisdiction and authority. I want what I want NOW." This most likely explains why he treats the Ninth Amendment, and its terrible inconvenience to his argument, as if it never existed.

Roe v. Wade is not the only Supreme Court decision involving the idea of a right to privacy. In fact, the text of the majority opinion in that case lists fourteen other decisions which cite a right to privacy, dating back to 1891. Read the text for yourself if you don't believe me.

Here's a hint for those of you who may be rusty on your Constitutional scholarship skills: Look for the big Roman numeral VIII to find the list of prior cases citing a right to privacy.

Do you also want to see all of those overturned as well? Should the Court perhaps overturn Griswold v. Connecticut and reopen the way for laws making it a crime to tell married couples about birth control pills?

If not, your attempts to portray Roe v. Wade as an "unconstitutional" decision will ring hollow.

Dang Victor, how can you manage to be so totally wrong? It's exactly the 9th and 10th Amendments that most specifically limit the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Nor am I claiming that people don't have rights not enumerated in the Constitution. It's just not up to the federal government generally nor the Supreme Court specifically to make all the decisions.

Let me spell it out to you S-E-P-A-R-A-T-I-O-N O-F P-O-W-E-R-S

As regards your third paragraph, saying that "screw all lines of authority" reveals my true position: are you simply being purposely dishonest, or are you just slow witted?

Nice dodge, Mr. Barger, but no luck.

You fail to address the substance of my comment, namely, the long history of Court decisions involving a right to privacy.

In addition to that, the Fourteenth Amendment (and that little skirmish back in the 1860s, which some still like to call "The Late Unpleasantness") placed rather definite limits on the separation of powers. State governments can experiment in many ways, but not in ways that take away the fundamental rights of individuals. The federal government has a well established interest in preventing state governments from making laws that violate the constitutional rights of United States citizens.

Many Constitutional scholars will tell you, for example, that when the First Amendment was originally written, most of the Framers accepted the idea that state governments could establish a state religion. The First Amendment merely prevented the federal government from competing with this prerogative of state governments. But now, of course, every sane legal scholar knows that both the state and the federal governments are prohibited from establishing any official religion.

The same shift in meaning must also be applied to the Ninth Amendment. It no longer limits only the federal government's laws. The rights of individuals, whether enumerated specifically or not, limit the powers of all governments, federal, state, or local.

Perhaps, Mr. Barger, I see in your arguments the internal contradictions you fail to perceive.

"It's my understanding that drugs are illegal because someone on drugs loses their ability of rational thought and can pose a harm to others."

Sounds like beer to me...

"I could be wrong, and it could be entirely moral based. In either case, I don't think there should be any laws against recreational drug use like marijuana."

I agree.

"I can't really rationalize the answers to your questions, RJ, because I don't really know, they do seem hypocritical."

Well, we agree on something, BCB!