“At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. . . .
“With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
“The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. . . . .”
Justice Byron White
Supreme Court – United States
1973
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but that’s from a dissenting opinion. Thus, not of the majority. Thus: “Your side lost. Get over it.”
Comment by Chuck — Monday July 25, 2005 @ 8:00 pm
Of course it’s from a dissenting opinion. I merely copied it here to show what one of the 9 justices felt.
And just so you know, my side won. At least the side I was on for that opinion. Once again Chuck you have painted the broad brush. I stated on Grace’s blog that I don’t want RvW overturned. Still feel that way.
Comment by Don — Monday July 25, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
That’s a novel way of expressing support, then, to quote a dissenting opinion. Too clever for me.
Comment by Chuck — Tuesday July 26, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
Then maybe I should explain.
Although I believe the court made a wrong decision and overstepped their bounds, I agree with the outcome.
I believe a law banning abortion is wrong. I think a woman has the right to choose.
I also think the supreme court had no business taking a state mattter and making it a federal matter.
So although I agree with the outcome of RvW I disagree with the legality of what the supreme court did.
Does that help?
Comment by Don — Tuesday July 26, 2005 @ 10:07 pm
Wow, Don, you and I are close on this one.
I also support the outcome of the decision, that at least in early pregnancy it should be up to the mother.
I am not sure that the court had jurisdiction over the matter.
In contrast, the freedom of speech and religion issues where the court has made recent controversial decisions are tied to specific parts of the constitution. People may disagree on the interpretation of the first amendment, but it clearly addresses speech and religion.
While the court has been moderately liberal, I have not been too concerned about accusations that it has extended its jurisdiction. As it swings more conservative, I expect to become more indignant and want it to pull in it’s elbows. I realize this isn’t a fair position, but I’m being honest.
Comment by Daryl — Wednesday July 27, 2005 @ 1:29 pm