| > What the supreme's did in practice was look for abstruse excuses to justify changing. Roe v. Wade was the abstruse excuse to justify the desired outcome. It was effectively legislating from the bench. > First, all the republicans claimed they would follow precedent unless there was a really good reason. I think a prior court precedent being unconstitutional is a really good reason. > They now claim the limits of our rights were set in 1868. Where did get this idea? From the actual opinion of Dobbs: > In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree. To begin, I agree that constitutional rights ap- ply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional. But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments. What it says is that the Supreme Court is not authorized by the Constitution to grant new rights. This is 100% correct. Legislative processes are the means that should be employed to accomplish this. |