Judicial Arrogance

JUDICIAL ARROGANCE - SUPREME COURT

United States Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade Decision

Justice Byron White's Dissent

In his dissenting opinion in 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 abortion at 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 constitutional right 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 Court in 1973.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Unborn Child Amendment

Unborn Child Amendment Book

Delegate Resolutions Controlling the Single Issue Federal Convention

Article V Analysis From the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution

Support the Unborn Child Amendment - make a contribution today!

Donations can also be mailed to Citizen Initiatives P.O. Box 523 Spruce Pine, NC 28777-0523*

*Donations are not tax deductible.

Send mail to [email protected] with questions or comments about this web site. Please let us know if our links or other functionalities are not working. Thank you!
Copyright © 2009 CITIZEN INITIATIVES. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

JUDICIAL ARROGANCE - SUPREME COURT

United States Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade Decision

Justice Byron White's Dissent

Send mail to [email protected] with questions or comments about this web site. Please let us know if our links or other functionalities are not working. Thank you! Copyright © 2009 CITIZEN INITIATIVES. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Send mail to [email protected] with questions or comments about this web site. Please let us know if our links or other functionalities are not working. Thank you!
Copyright © 2009 CITIZEN INITIATIVES. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy