Can we agree that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court was legislating from the bench?

Question

Nothing in stare decisis supported it; they just pulled it out of their *** because that was what NOW and other organizations wanted at the time. Even Roe herself acknowledges her abortion was a mistake, and is a born-again Christian now.

Answer 1

Yes definately. I suggest reading a book called Men in Black by Mark Levin. He is a VERY smart man and he has a great radio show. But I digress, He talks ALOT about judicial activists and how they abuse their power. Things like "judicial review". Etc

Answer 2

So by your thinking, making it illegal must have been the court's way of sticking it up their *** - as far as Roe, much is made of this but what exactly is the point - because she supposedly regrets her decision should all women be deprived of making their own decision?  To follow that illogical logic, you'd have to say that back then because she wanted an abortion, ALL women should be forced to have an abortion.

Answer 3

Without a doubt it is legislating from the bench.  Read the decision.  It reads more like a bill introdiced to Congress than an adjudication on a dispute between parties.  "Senator" Blackmun was really feelin his oats!

Answer 4

American judges are by far the most non-corrupt group of people in the entire world, probably during most of history.  We should be filled with pride at their ability to remain objective in the fact of such division in the country.  Tearing them down by saying "legislating from the bench" shows a fundamental disrepect of one of the most honorable group of men and women that this or any country have ever seen.

Answer 5

Of course it was.

Abortion had to be legalized by the courts because a bill advocating murder could never be passed into law by congress.

Answer 6

No. To understand this, I recommend reading the Court's full opinion instead of listening to what others tell you about it, or reading excerpts.  It is nothing like legislation. See the link below.

I don't think that the US Supreme Court gives a rip about what "NOW and other organizations wanted," either then or now.