Just one point on Roe, to follow up
on Atrios. There's a lot of nonsense about the legal reasoning behind Roe, but that's really besides the point. There are different schools of legal reasoning, which means that coherence by one school is incoherence by another (ahem, Bush v Gore much?). Roe's rationale has changed pretty substantially; originally it was written to protect the rights of doctors, but now it has intersected with women's rights, privacy rights, and civil rights cases as well. Settled law means that functionally, Roe has taken on the meaning of a legal precedent that other courts must work under.
It's not some airy philosophical debate. Roe is de facto part of the constitutional order under which we live.
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.