Supreme Court Decisions

[Black Razor]

Suppose the Supreme Court had decided in Roe V. Wade that the

Constitution states that abortion must be illegal, that any law which

allowed abortion was unconstitutional.

What would your reaction have been?

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[lost&outofcontrol]

Suppose the Supreme Court had decided in Roe V. Wade that the

Constitution states that abortion must be illegal, that any law which

allowed abortion was unconstitutional.

What would your reaction have been?

Funny thing about nine judges arbitrarily deciding people's fate is that they are always wrong if you disagree with them.

[FTA Lawyer]

Suppose the Supreme Court had decided in Roe V. Wade that the

Constitution states that abortion must be illegal, that any law which

allowed abortion was unconstitutional.

What would your reaction have been?

Funny thing about nine judges arbitrarily deciding people's fate is that they are always wrong depending on if you agree with them or not.

Even funnier is when you get a 5-4 split decision...meaning the persons' fates are able to turn completely full circle on nothing more than the whim of a single judge. This is why I have argued in the past that there should need to be a weighted majority for Supreme Court decisions.

As to the question of the thread, I find it really difficult to see how a decision declaring abortion to be constituionally illegal could stand up to scrutiny. That being said, I don't profess to have the answers when it comes to the U.S. Constitution...which is very different in many respects to the Canadian version.

FTA

[M.Dancer]

Suppose the Supreme Court had decided in Roe V. Wade that the

Constitution states that abortion must be illegal, that any law which

allowed abortion was unconstitutional.

What would your reaction have been?

I would have said.....

You can tell an American at 100 meters but after that you can't tell them anything.

[August1991]

This is why I have argued in the past that there should need to be a weighted majority for Supreme Court decisions.

That's an interesting comment that I have thought about too.

It is hard to believe that the justices don't implicitly take into account the strength of their opinion about certain judgments. In effect, I'm sure one says to the other: I'll support your viewpoint on this decision (for which I simply don't have a strong opinion) if you support me on this other issue (of which you are not firmly decdied).