[quote]Are you talking to me?
Me? An actual liberterian?
Fact remains, abortion was made legal by the judges “finding” the right of privacy in the Constitution. Now, if they’d been able to make the argument you did–which I agree with–there’s no problem. The problem arises when they start finding things that aren’t there. Today, you agree with what they find, but what about tomorrow? [/quote]
Well, Joe, I’m glad we agree on something. I have read the Roe v. Wade decision and Blackmun attempted to work the Ninth Amendment in there; not as well as I would have liked. And I do agree that the current crop of opinions contains some piss poor legal reasoning. The Lawrence v. Texas decision, which said that the government had no business regulating consensual sexual activity, started talking about “emerging contemporary moral standards” as a basis for the decision. When the Court writes stuff like that, it definitely makes them sound like they’re legislating and they’re asking for trouble.
In response to your question, “what else will they find,” talking heads like Levin always make things seem worse than they are. Legislatures will always have more power than the courts. Legislatures can draft laws whenever they feel the need for a new law. Courts must wait until an actual case comes for review. This should be basic civics 101, but I sometimes feel that people have this notion that a court can pick a statute at random, declare it unconstitutional, and call it a day. That’s not the case. In certain instances, even when a statute is declared unconstitutional, the legislature can go back and “try again” by drafting a new statute that will pass constitutional scrutiny. Courts can’t redraft statutes and add language that they think should be in there – it’s strictly thumbs up and thumbs down.