Why did the SC need a Goldilocks decision to overturn it? Examples from since the Constitution were invalid but examples before the Constitution were also invalid.
Ruth did not "disagree with it". She was critical of it, which is very very different.
Specifically she thought that focusing on the doctors right to decide on treatment course was a bad vector to enshrine a woman's control over her own bodily function.
Similarly she saw the rallying cry and felt that if the SC hadn't stepped in a more natural process would have resulted in a similar status over a longer time period anyway.
"If the SC hadn't done something everyone else would have" and " it didn't go far enough" are not "disagreed with".
That’s the problem, Roe was an overstepping of the Supreme Court. A law should’ve been passed instead. That is why this Supreme Court ruled the way they did. There was nothing in the Constitution or established law to support Roe.
Guvante|2 years ago
Ruth did not "disagree with it". She was critical of it, which is very very different.
Specifically she thought that focusing on the doctors right to decide on treatment course was a bad vector to enshrine a woman's control over her own bodily function.
Similarly she saw the rallying cry and felt that if the SC hadn't stepped in a more natural process would have resulted in a similar status over a longer time period anyway.
"If the SC hadn't done something everyone else would have" and " it didn't go far enough" are not "disagreed with".
_2z1p|2 years ago