Started By
Message
locked post

Roe v Wade Was a Faulty Decision ------------- According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:18 am
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135592 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:18 am
With all the fretting over Kennedy's replacement in terms of Roe, some of our resident libs might be surprised to hear RBG's take on the 1973 Burger Court Opinion
quote:

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

LINK
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:20 am to
Read harder. You guys act like she is dumb sometimes
This post was edited on 7/5/18 at 7:23 am
Posted by Parmen
Member since Apr 2016
18317 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:20 am to
Well yeah because it’s not based on law. Scalia said it best. No where in the Constitution is this allowed. The only way it could have been legal is through the democratic process according to him.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135592 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:24 am to
quote:

Read harder
Read harder than a direct quote of the article?
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
162831 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:43 am to
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135592 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 7:49 am to
quote:

You guys act like she is dumb sometimes
Read harder.

I certainly feel she's made embarrassing political statements in the last 2-3yrs that she'd never have made were she in possession of her full past faculties. But dumb? Nope.
Posted by gatorrocks
Lake Mary, FL
Member since Oct 2007
13995 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:15 am to
I think you meant comprehend. Can't read harder.

It's ok. We understand liberaleese.
Posted by Eli Goldfinger
Member since Sep 2016
32785 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:20 am to
So she thinks it was a good decision, but for the wrong reasons...and it was too much too fast.
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
23049 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:20 am to
quote:

Read harder. You guys act like she is dumb sometimes


I mean she is obviously Pro-Abortion but the point is that she thinks Roe v Wade is a flawed judgement. This is LITERALLY one of the things Barret is getting heat for from the left.

RBG mentions RvW decision is physician-centric (right to practice) and not woman-centric (right to have an abortion).

Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that there are medical procedures that physicians are legally prohibited from doing (assisted suicide comes to mind). If the rule based on not infringing the the right to practice but yet there are things that a Dr is prohibited from doing then could abortion be added to the list of prohibited procedures?
This post was edited on 7/5/18 at 8:30 am
Posted by BlackAdam
Member since Jan 2016
7046 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:26 am to
Yeah, not many people, even those that are pro-abortion think RvW was a good decision with a solid legal basis.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:35 am to
quote:

So she thinks it was a good decision, but for the wrong reasons


Yes.
Posted by unclejhim
Folsom, La.
Member since Nov 2011
3703 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:38 am to
Yeah she also said Gay Marriage should be decide by the states. Then she presided at a gay wedding before voting in favor of it.
Posted by CptRusty
Basket of Deplorables
Member since Aug 2011
11740 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:38 am to
You do realize that it is possible to be pro-choice and simultaneously understand that Roe v. Wade was a terrible legal decision, right?

Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:39 am to
quote:

So she thinks it was a good decision, but for the wrong reasons...and it was too much too fast.
No. She thinks it was a good result, but a bad legal decision.
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
23049 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:40 am to
quote:

So she thinks it was a good decision, but for the wrong reasons


Yes.


That is not what I got out of it. She seems to like the fact that it allowed women the ability to have abortions but she also thought that it was focused on the wrong thing. Seems to me that she feels the decision is some what susceptible to not necessarily being overturned but addressed from a different direction that could have a positive or negative effect on whether a woman can have an abortion.
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
48076 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:42 am to
quote:

Yeah, not many people, even those that are pro-abortion think RvW was a good decision with a solid legal basis.


Nobody can make a constitutional argument for it. They didn't really try.

RvW was a decision pre-decided and they created an "umbra from the penumbra" validation based on 'right to privacy,' another presumed "right."

This cried out for a legislative solution where the political aspects could be sorted out and compromises defined and limitations imposed, rather than a judicial fiat which anyone with a brain can question. If an amendment is required then that is the MOST declarative statement you can make to ensure future compliance.

Leftists don't even try the right way to do anything - they want to claim ad hoc victories and expand on them, supported by mob rule.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:42 am to
quote:

You do realize that it is possible to be pro-choice and simultaneously understand that Roe v. Wade was a terrible legal decision, right?


Sure. USSC is not infallible.. Re: 2nd amendment incorporated against states (handguns in your home)
This post was edited on 7/5/18 at 8:45 am
Posted by SDVTiger
Cabo San Lucas
Member since Nov 2011
93615 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:44 am to
Good now the loons can stop crying once its overturned
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135592 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:53 am to
quote:

quote:

So she thinks it was a good decision, but for the wrong reasons
Yes.
Read harder.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 7/5/18 at 8:53 am to
quote:


Good now the loons can stop crying once its overturned



Will republicans finally admit they are authoritarians? I doubt it but it's going to be fun to watch the mental gymnastics
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram