[rayiner]

The fact that liberals peg their views of the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” on a cluster fuck of an opinion as Roe v. Wade speaks volumes.

Roe is so bad that it has long united libertarian conservatives (who hate it because it makes up a right out of thin air) and social conservatives (who had abortion on the merits).

In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms, which:

1) Generally recognize abortion as an issue for the legislature.

2) Typically draw the line for elective abortions at the end of the first trimester, not viability. The abortion laws in Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain would be unconstitutional under Roe.

[tbrownaw]

> In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms

Isn't our take on freedom of speech rather out of line with international norms? And probably also our take on bearing arms being a right?

I don't think I buy the implied claim that being out of line with norms is necessarily a bad thing.

[remarkEon]

Those two examples are literally written down as amendments to the Constitution itself. If France or Germany wanted to amend theirs to reflect free speech and the right to bear arms,, they are free to do so. Likewise, if the Untied States wishes to enshrine a right to abortion analogous to free speech and arms bearing, it is also free to do so.

I'm not following how you think these are comparable.

[maxerickson]

I think I've actually asked you something like this before, but is there a compact way to write a constitutional amendment that creates a right to privacy?

[sjg007]

A racist would make the same argument about Brown vs Board.