No, it was Supreme Court justices who ruled on Roe v. Wade, not "shyster lawyers." Lawyers, shyster or otherwise, don't get to rule on anything. Only judges or justices can do that.
And please don't tell me what I can and can't see. You don't have a clue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Re "Since when do "shyster lawyers" get to rule": Roe v. Wade? "The Court recognized the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of personal privacy." Let me spell it out. Here in Europe abortion rights are not a live issue. The right of a woman to have an abortion is widely supported. But I *never, ever* heard anyone argue that "personal privacy" was the reason they favoured a woman's right to choose. Your judges voted as they did simply and purely because of their belief that terminations should be a matter of the free choice of an individual. The privacy angle was a transparent rationalisation. You can't see that blindingly obvious point because you support the decision (as do I, more-or-less) and you won't open your eyes to the usurpation by judges of what the electorate should have decided. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : "Shyster lawyers"?? We're talking about the Supreme Court here. Since when do "shyster lawyers" get to rule on interpretation of the Constitution? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Re "Allowing for changing attitudes" : You're making my case for me! If people's attitudes have changed they will vote for representatives who share their views and who will amend the constitution accordingly. See how it works? The people decide; and not shyster lawyers. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Okay, take one example. Gay marriage. Strictly interpreted constitution-wise, ala Originalism, the verdict would be "no". But allowing for changing attitudes, with a slightly more liberal interpretation, the answer would be "yes" Issues seem easier to resolve in theory than in practice. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : "Originalism" sounds like what I would call common sense. If you don't approve of what the original constitution lays down then get your elected representatives to amend the constitution by due process. How hard can it be? The idea that a bunch of lawyers - who I've never voted for - can "interpret" the original wording in a way more in line with their own prejudices and clearly at odds with the obvious reading doesn't bode well.
