<< Roe is a terrible opinion based on terribly flawed, almost bizaare, legal reasoning and legal manuevering.
Dooby...one thing that struck me during law school was how many Sup Ct opinions seemed to be result oriented with the reasoning and precedent cobbled together, almost after the fact, to justify the result. Though I agree with the ideas behind ROE, I found the opinion to be as you describe.
Don't you think most decisions from the Supremes have some "legal manuevering" behind them ?
{leaving space for KG to add his .02 on this one)
Like Sturm, the women that I know are strongly pro-choice. Sarah Weddington being one of them. >>
Yes, most supreme court decisions have a lot of legal manuevering behind them and are result oriented. But Roe is an extreme example. Blackmun's notion that a fetus is not a person because it isn't counted in the census as described in the constitution in 1789 is laughable. And I find the notion of Griswald as precedent to be infuriating.
OP, I think I am closer to law school than you are. I don't know what you remember, but my Con-law class drove me nuts. I am a pretty big Hofheld fan (which I picked up in my Contracts course) who believes in corresponding rights and duties and privileges and no-rights of individuals. I deplore penumbras and the "ratchet theory".
__________________
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell. – Thomas Fuller
|