--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate > > judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint. > > The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven > > by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that > > the Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that > > the law may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad > > idea; but that under our system of government, the writing of laws > > is reserved for the legislative branch of government. > > > >From what you say, I take that if, somehow, science proves without > any doubt that human life - soul - sentience - whatever begins > before, say, 6 months, then the courts should *not* immediately > outlaw any abortion of 6-month-old fetuses, but wait for the congress > to outlaw it?
It is my position that the USSC should overturn Roe v. Wade, and leave the issue to Congress or to the several States, respectively. In the unique thought experiment you provide, the plain text of the 14th Amendment would apply: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
