Sunday is the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade

DallasBlog.com | William Murchison:

“Come Sunday, January 22, the most inflammatory decision in judicial history turns 33 years old. ... Here’s this bunch of guys whom no one elected to anything; some parties to a lawsuit have put before them a disputed notion, and magically, under the justices’ hands, that notion -- the right to abortion -- becomes law, governing the way we lesser beings, we non-justices of the Supreme Court, live or perhaps don’t live at all. Oh, we don’t agree with the court, whether fully or in part? WELL, SHUT UP!!! Such is the message supporters of Roe have worked successfully for 33 years to convey.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Disdain and sarcasm instead of logical argument. Inconsistency with professed conservative principles. I guess that's what happens when things don't go your way. You won't hear this observer telling Mr Murchison to shut up. But he should know that it will take more than whining and ranting to convince others to give Mr Murchison's opinion any consideration at all.

Roe v Wade is not the most inflammatory decision in judicial history. That distinction goes, by a long shot, to the Dred Scott decision, which rallied anti-slavery forces and was a contributing factor to the Civil War, the most divisive and damaging war in our nation's history. A woman's right to choose may be unpopular with the religious right, but Mr Murchison is wrong to exaggerate its place in American history.

Does Mr Murchison's sarcastic description of judicial review indicate that he thinks we shouldn't have courts? Or that the courts should consult with him before making decisions? Or query focal groups? Or hold referenda to decide controversial cases? Does he think that the Founding Fathers were wrong in making the justices appointed positions instead of elected? Or that there should be shortcuts to amend the Constitution when you can't get "we the people", in the form of the House and Senate and three quarters of the state legislatures, to agree with you? Exactly what radical change to our form of government is Mr Murchison advocating because things didn't go his way this time?

State restrictions of a woman's right to choose had grown thick and oppressive in the years since the Constitution was adopted. Finally, some anonymous woman (Jane Roe) had had enough. A lawsuit worked its way through our courts and landed on the docket of the Supreme Court. The Court didn't ask for the case. It just did its Constitutional duty to resolve this fundamental dispute that came before it. The Supreme Court chose to uphold the Constitution in the face of this forest of local laws restricting a Constitutional right. But because Mr Murchison is morally outraged with abortion, he is still incensed, 33 years later, that a panel of judges ruled that the federal Constitution recognizes a woman's right to control her own body. And that trumps 50 state laws. He rants and raves about the Court's "Prussian like disdain" for "lesser beings" instead of seeing that's just how our system of government works -- the Supreme Court's decision carries more weight than some blogger's opinion. He longs for the day when a newly packed Court will overturn long settled law (of "nearly gray-bearded longevity"). And he describes such hoped-for activism as "modesty-in-high-places." What a mockery of conservatism. What effrontery.