I'm assuming from your previous post that you consider legal abortion a moral disaster that triggered equal rights,…
Huh? No aspect of my opinions or arguments are based on being christian. And, no I don't think legal abortion is a moral disaster, in fact, especially on the personal level I see many moral circumstances for abortion compared to most pro-life advocates. I object to the 'industry' more than practice. There are many countries that legalized abortion as representative democracies should[by the people]; what I object to most in RvW, is not the result, I respect the framework, it was the underlying extremely damaging and dangerous legal methodology, which read-ins based on outcome rather than fair interpretation of the 'spirit of the law' and 'common law practice'. I wouldn't claim that's exclusive to the left, but unlike the right it is outright encouraged - which does sicken me and makes me quite vocal on the matter.
Judicial activism, undermines the justification for a legal system. I trust the legal system, only in so much as it can render fair and impartial rulings. When it merges with the legislative branch — there is only state, which derives not from 'protection of individual rights' & 'consent of the governed' but rather the same debunked justifications of kings and their courts. This may seem academic but it matters to me.
Judicial activism, is when new law magically appears in courts when there in fact none by legislation or case precedence; because, in the opinion of the legal establishment it should. I get deeply concerned - even when I agree. Legislation is often extremely flaw, but that is the place designed to balance the considerations of making law. Again, I morally, have far more concern, problems & outrage with the decision on 'Planned Parenthood v. Casey' than anything in 'Roe v. Wade'.
The underlying question here is a philosophical one: does life being at conception, second trimester(as I think), birth, with cognicience? That will be debated probably forever, but in terms of legal implication, the idea a legal body not legislative body be in postion to determine 'balancing disagreemnt' because 'due process' of individual view is insane pretzel logic, that's the purpose of legislative branch. This puts into question the very foundational value of any social law which requires any subjective or moral argument on restrictions involving more than one person.
By this logic, a marriage licence being exclusive to man and women(or person and person) verses horse a man and a cow and a cousin. Unconstitutional. Personal privacy / due process. Government should have no right to decide, the number or constitution of the marriage unless then can show strictly good reason in accordance with x. Insider trading laws. Unconstitutional. A civil dispute between independent parties….
This is not the slippery slope argument. It's hyperbole to highlight the logic isn't Jurisprudence. The danger lays elsewhere. I could care less, if governments didn't pass any marriage certificates or did to anyone/anything who applied; nor if insider trading was a matter of civil dispute between affected parties.
Does a government have the right restrict pedophile cults without complaints from inside? You know the ones we have across the country who traffic in underage girls and child labour, at least without strict court review. It wouldn't matter today sure, as courts would review in favour of protecting the children, but now imagine this religion spreads, became a wide spread and popular practice, verse the exception, and now some of the judges are involved, well now that same legal justification for 'review' is exactly how the evil is allowed to grow. (History is chock-full of it)
Legislative bodies, have the right to make 'bad law'. If say, Texas was preventing a women going out of state to get an abortion. Now, we talking.
The people of Texas, do have the right to within their jurisdiction infringe anyone rights when in they are de facto protecting a fetus they have read-in the same rights too.
Or, are laws related to killing an illegal, unconstitutional, as it involved different legal right standards which must be 'reviewed' and justified to the courts?
Come on, you should just admit it. They saw a law, they consider it bad law, they rewrote it, then justified it with legalese. That is my issue there. I was simply curious if you could admit that. Based on your answer I can assume not, you think it totally normal of the courts not legislative to decide philosophical questions like this without strict legal review. You think 'due process' and privacy rights, totally make sense as justification for a fundamental right to abort. This was not a power grab or violation of checks and balance in the slightest. Great for you! I learned now I don't want to talk law with you. So I'll restrict future responses to the moral aspects.
eace