You may have heard somewhere along the way that the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a leftist icon, was a critic of the Court's controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. She was, without question, a strong proponent of legalized abortion – but believed that Roe itself was "too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks," as a New York Times piece put it last year.
Among progressive legal experts, she was not alone. Someone with similar sentiments is Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar, a self-described liberal who is pro-choice on abortion policy.
Here's his overall conclusion (emphasis mine): "I am a Democrat who supports abortion rights but opposes Roe. The Court's ruling in the case was simply not grounded either in what the Constitution says or in the long-standing, widely embraced mores and practices of the country. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that, and perhaps the Dobbs draft is wrong too. But there is nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political in what Justice Alito has written."
Clearly. Even Libs who think know Roe socks as law.
So, let the legal challenges begin.
This is America. This is a representative republic.
Comments Start Below
The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Liberal Yale Professor: Roe Was Bad Law and the Alito Draft Is Constitutionally Sound":
