Topic: Abortion
Quote: Can you please provide a cite in the Constitution that supports the notion that a Supreme Court Justice nominee has the power to declare that any case is "settled law" and the subsequent power to make it so?\nI didn\'t think so.
Response: And can you provide a citation from the Constitution that supports the notion that a President can send the military half-way round the world without a declaration of war from Congress?\nCome now. To call an issue "settled law" is, as someone else pointed out, to emphasize stare decisis, i.e. "to stand by what has been decided," i.e. to recognize the binding nature of precedent. This is why, in those rare cases where long-standing precedents are overturned, it\'s such a big deal: the court essentially admits that it had been wrong.\nAs to so-called "judicial activism" -- and again as someone else pointed out -- to emphasize stare decisis is preciesly the opposite of "judicial activism." With regard to Roe itself, what I find remarkable is that the court exercised so much restraint: the justices explicitly refused to make a declaration about when life begins. They explicitly claimed not to have any qualifications to make such a decision, and they noted that even those who examine the issue thoroughly -- scientists and physicians, theologians and philosophers -- are nowhere near a consensus on the matter. So they decided not step in and settle such metaphysical questions.\nIndeed, it is ultimately individuals whom the court allowed to make this decision as they see fit. And so, they based the decision on the right to privacy. Said right is not explicit in the Constitution, but that doesn\'t matter (see the Ninth Amendment for why). And said right is also not absolute (as the decision again explicitly says): it is limited in this case by the state\'s compelling interest in protecting prenatal life (a point which is often overlooked by all sides in the abortion debate), and that interest is directly proportional to the viability of the fetus. But what Roe clarified is that any law establishing the protection of prenatal life as an unconditional trump of the mother\'s right to privacy is unconstitutional. Within reasonable limits, she herself gets to decide when life begins, and to act accordingly.\nLike I said, judicial restraint. And a stunning example of defending the individual from government interference or social discrimination in matters of conscience, to boot.
42.857099999999996