The Sup. Ct. deals with issues that are controversial and beyond the scope of legislatures and the lower courts.
Yes, they are supposed to set precedent, but the Roe vs. Wade is unprecedented, and the precedent was not followed. Nobody uses Roe vs. Wade as a precedent setting case for anything privacy related.
Nonetheless, right to privacy is the basis for the Court's decision; at least according to Justice Blackmun. See his Opinion:
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon the state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
members.aol.com
Address what? Roe vs Wade? I thought we were talking about the right to privacy.
Yes. Rather than just privacy, we are discussing the fact that legislatures would need to prohibited from legislating on anything privacy related (as in Roe vs. Wade), which the article does not discuss.
I am not entirely clear what you are saying here. Legislatures can legislate whatever they want. However, if it violates any of the basic provisions of Common Law, the Constitution or any other founding documents, and it is contested, it may well find its way to the Supreme Ct.
ted |
