SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (12089)10/13/2003 12:03:50 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) of 793806
 
The trouble with Rowe v wade is that it was "Judical Fiat."

I have no doubt that the S. Court considered the role of state legislatures before issuing its decision. I would be surprised if the argument you appear to advocate had not been made by at least one of the parties.

I'm fairly certain that the Justices decided the case as they did in part because they did not trust the states to live by the right to privacy they were advancing as the reasoning behind the decision. And they were right.

The right to privacy is deemed "fundamental" under US law. Though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is often said to exist in its "penumbra." It protects a number of individual liberties, including a woman's decision to have an abortion, the right to use contraceptives, the right to decide how children should be educated, marry, etc. Unless "compelling state interest"--a stringent standard-- exists, there is nothing that the states can do to curtail these rights.

Obviously, the abortion issue is highly charged. But until the Court decides that an ambryo is a person entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment, there is little that can be done.

The various state legislatures often do get carried away in trying to advance social and cultural agendas that conflict with an individual's right to privacy. The federal courts routinely strike down such attempts. This is why it seems like "judicial fiats" take place. What you are actually seeing are the courts' limitations on the legislature's curtailment of individual privacy rights, which I applaud every time I see them happen.

For your reference, here is a link to the entire Roe v. Wade opinion, including the transcripts of the oral arguments.

216.239.39.104

C2@supposeHawaiisaidyoucan'tdancetheLindysamething.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News