Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (84622)	11/7/2004 2:11:35 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793789

The author is making the same sort of assumption that the liberals are who are labelling the Bush voters Bible-thumping rednecks. Well, that WAS why I posted it, as a sort of antidote, but it's also a humor piece, and, in case you didn't notice, written by a Scottish Tory in a Scottish conservative paper. But as for Roe v. Wade -- I think it's inevitable that it will be reversed. It's not based on sound constitutional grounds. It's a paradigm example of judicial legislation, perhaps THE paradigm example of federal judicial activism in a sphere outside constitutionally sound parameters. Reversing Roe v. Wade will NOT make abortion illegal, it will make abortion no longer a federal issue, and the states will have to resolve it. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal in New York, California, and Hawaii, perhaps more states. I expect it would remain legal in many states, but not all. The basis of Roe v. Wade is Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the SCOTUS held that Connecticut was constitutionally barred from banning contraception, based on the "right to privacy," an emanation from the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. I like my privacy as much as the next person, but the Constitution, which establishes a federal government with enumerated powers, does not contain a guarantee of the right to privacy. Maybe it should.