Judicial Arrogance
"Single Issue" Federal Amendment Conventions
through State Legislatures
|
Judicial Arrogance
|
|
Charles Kacprowicz Ezine Article: Ezine Directories Featured Author Bio: Charles Kacprowicz Authority Author: Charles Kacprowicz Book by Charles Kacprowicz at Amazon.com: Reclaiming America through Single Issue Federal Conventions Fair Tax Act: National Debt Awareness Center
|
JUSTICE BYRON WHITE'S DISSENTING OPINIONIn his dissenting opinionin Roe vs. Wade, Justice Byron White writes, “At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one of one or more of a variety or reasons—convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason, at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortionat her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure. The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother. With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutionalright for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.” The deceased Justice White, in his dissent in Roe vs. Wade, speaks to the erroneous logic and false jurisprudence exercised by seven of the nine members of the Supreme Courtin 1973. |
|
Send mail to
webmaster@citizeninitiatives.org with
questions or comments about this web site. Please let us know if our links
or other functionalities are not working. Thank you!
|
