From a libertarian POV, I think each state has the right to decide how it wants to approach abortion. I appose many of the religious right organisations that want a federal law or constitutional amendement to prevent it. Row v Wade was bad law and stepped on the rights of states. Bring it back to them.I happen to think that *morally* the conclusion of Roe vs Wade is correct.But the Supreme Court is supposed to be a court of law, not a court of morality.And that decision was based on the Griswold case. Another instance of the Court reaching a decision that I think is *morally* right.But legally?The conclusion of Griswold was heavily based on an "aura" that is "emanating" from the "penumbra" of other rights.Seriously? A stench coming from the shadows?Maybe somebody should pull the refrigerator out and clean the space under it.Can we PLEASE revisit this and either come up with an explanation that passes a laugh test, or conclude that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to have an opinion?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M