NationStates Jolt Archive

Roe v. Wade is probably the most controversial United States Supreme Court decision in recent memory. It marked the first time since Lenin's broad legalization of the procedure in the Soviet Union that a nation allowed for abortion to be given on demand.

The ruling itself, however, is quite bizarre. The majority laid out the idea that a general right to privacy seemed to be implied by various amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well the pre numbera of the Bill of Rights (EDIT: established in Griswold v. Connecticut). Abortion, in their opinion, fell under this implied right to privacy, but in an ambiguously limited way. They decided that the right to privacy and, therefore, the Constitutional right to undergo the procedure, should end at an arbitrary point, first defined in the ruling as the end of the first trimester. Then, they stated, states have the right to regulate the distribution of the procedure as they see fit.

The ruling appears oddly vague and legislative to me. The idea that a general right to privacy "appears to be implied" by amendments which clearly lay out basic privacy rights is highly questionable, in my opinion; the Framers clearly knew what rights were essential to protect people's privacy, and thus wrote the related amendments accordingly. Secondly, the fact that such an arbitrary standard exists for the right to privacy in this case seems to find little basis in law. If such a right exists, shouldn't it be preserved throughout the entire pregnancy? What is the legal justification for it ending at a certain point and the state's right to regulate the procedure arising at this time? If the court decided not to "resolve where life begins", as they put it, then why was such a limit placed on the right to privacy in this case if they were not attempting to decide fetal viability?

Roe v. Wade: a very confusing and highly questionable ruling, indeed.

Roe v. Wade is probably the most controversial United States Supreme Court decision in recent memory. It marked the first time since Lenin's broad legalization of the procedure in the Soviet Union that a nation allowed for abortion to be given on demand.

I didn't know Lenin did that! Plus 5 for Lenin. He's still at -49583 for War Communism, the Checka, and perverting the great moral experiment of our time into a brutal dictatorship... but hey, credit where credit is due.

I didn't know Lenin did that! Plus 5 for Lenin. He's still at -49583 for War Communism, the Checka, and perverting the great moral experiment of our time into a brutal dictatorship... but hey, credit where credit is due.

Well, Hitler was involved in the creation of the Volkswagon. Even the worst of the lot have their good points if you look hard enough.

Roe is no longer the applicable standard however. THe rationale for constitutionally protected abortion was rearticulated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

And btw the whole "penubras and emminations" thing? That was griswald, not roe. Roe expanded on it, but did not use the argument originally.

The right to privacy within the interpreted constitution now falls squarly on the 14th amendment.

Roe is no longer the applicable standard however. THe rationale for constitutionally protected abortion was rearticulated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

And btw the whole "penubras and emminations" thing? That was griswald, not roe. Roe expanded on it, but did not use the argument originally.

The right to privacy within the interpreted constitution now falls squarly on the 14th amendment.

Artemis, you continually amaze me with your knowledge of constitutional law.

I bet you are going to study civil liberties and go work for the ACLU when you grow up.

Roe v. Wade is probably the most controversial United States Supreme Court decision in recent memory. It marked the first time since Lenin's broad legalization of the procedure in the Soviet Union that a nation allowed for abortion to be given on demand.
Roe v. Wade: a very confusing and highly questionable ruling, indeed.

Here he go again. A right-wing fundy trying to attack THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION GUANRANTEED SPECIFICALLY BY THE 1ST, 4TH, 9TH, and 14TH amendments, just because you are too stupid to realize that we aren't in the 18th century anymore and shouldn't be governed by an 18th century document written by racist white men who owned slaves.

I trust law professors and legal scholars and people who discuss this deeply to make the determination of what the Constitution means, not some reading instructor who simply looks up the words and then makes a ruling (i.e. Antonin Scalia)

Here he go again. A right-wing fundy trying to attack THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION GUANRANTEED SPECIFICALLY BY THE 1ST, 4TH, 9TH, and 14TH amendments, just because you are too stupid to realize that we aren't in the 18th century anymore and shouldn't be governed by an 18th century document written by racist white men who owned slaves.

I trust law professors and legal scholars and people who discuss this deeply to make the determination of what the Constitution means, not some reading instructor who simply looks up the words and then makes a ruling (i.e. Antonin Scalia)
Um, I'll give you 9 and 14, but you're really stretching with 1 and 4.

Um, I'll give you 9 and 14, but you're really stretching with 1 and 4.

Ragbralbur, it's ok, so long as you support abortion. What I like about the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th is they can justify any progressive policy.

Thank Our Common Ancestor with Gorilla for FDR and his quiet revolution, especially the defeat of the mean-spirited supreme court majority that tried to impose "original intent" garbage on us, two centuries after the document was written. We are lucky to have, as Justice Breyer says, Active Liberty, where Liberty changes with the times.

Ragbralbur, it's ok, so long as you support abortion. What I like about the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th is they can justify any progressive policy.

Thank Our Common Ancestor with Gorilla for FDR and his quiet revolution, especially the defeat of the mean-spirited supreme court majority that tried to impose "original intent" garbage on us, two centuries after the document was written. We are lucky to have, as Justice Breyer says, Active Liberty, where Liberty changes with the times.
I'm Canadian. We don't even talk about it anymore. That said, were I an American, I'd be a little concerned about the somewhat circular logic of the 14th amendment. The 14th says that you are free to enjoy any natural privileges or immunities, which we in turn use as a justification for the natural privileges and immunities we want to grant.

I may be pro-choice, but the actual nature of the 14th is what makes this debate so interesting and explains why it has lasted so long.

Roe is no longer the applicable standard however. THe rationale for constitutionally protected abortion was rearticulated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

And btw the whole "penubras and emminations" thing? That was griswald, not roe. Roe expanded on it, but did not use the argument originally.

The right to privacy within the interpreted constitution now falls squarly on the 14th amendment.
I am aware of both the fact that Casey set the new "constitutional" standard for abortion rights, as well as the fact that Griswold established the right to general privacy. For the sake of a post that did not read like a novel, however, I chose not to include those aspects, because I wanted to discuss Roe as a ruling by itself. It is, after all, what set the standard for abortion as a constitutional right for years to come. Casey is an entirely separate story with its bizarre legal justifications and so forth.

Well, it doesn't matter now. It is (despite what some say) "Settled" law. It is legal, currently to have an abortion. Whether we change that via the courts, or an amendment, or rioting, or whatever, well, that's still in the balance, and probably will be for another twenty years. Neither side lets go easily.

This thread is crap, not only do you confuse Roe with at least half a dozen other court cases, but you completely mess up the very nature of the ruling.

Well, it doesn't matter now. It is (despite what some say) "Settled" law. It is legal, currently to have an abortion. Whether we change that via the courts, or an amendment, or rioting, or whatever, well, that's still in the balance, and probably will be for another twenty years. Neither side lets go easily.
That's just the thing, though. Should incorrectly decided court decisions be mandating the permitting of such a controverisal practice for over thirty years to come?

That's just the thing, though. Should incorrectly decided court decisions be mandating the permitting of such a controverisal practice for over thirty years to come?
Should court cases have stopped African American discrimination?

People still talk about this?

Should court cases have stopped African American discrimination?
What in the hell does that have to do with this case or abortion rights?

What in the hell does that have to do with this case or abortion rights?
It has everything to do with the statement I quoted. If you can't see that, you shouldn't have started the topic.

And judging by the number of cases you confused Roe v Wade with, you shouldn't have started it anyway.

in retrospect, roe v. wade was an excellent decision with great benefits to the US.

the right to privacy and the right to make our own medical decisions might not be spelled out in the constiution but who wants to live without those freedoms?

It has everything to do with the statement I quoted. If you can't see that, you shouldn't have started the topic.

And judging by the number of cases you confused Roe v Wade with, you shouldn't have started it anyway.
No, it doesn't. You have provided no reasoning whatsoever, other than assuming that it's my belief that cases such as Brown v. Board were incorrectly decided just because I question the authenticity of Roe.

I never confused any cases with Roe. I explained that I didn't mention Griswold because I felt that it wasn't necessary in the context of discussing this case; I mentioned how I found the "general right to privacy" view to be bizarre, but that wasn't the point that I brought up about Roe. Go back and read my post more carefully.

in retrospect, roe v. wade was an excellent decision with great benefits to the US.

the right to privacy and the right to make our own medical decisions might not be spelled out in the constiution but who wants to live without those freedoms?
That's my point. Regardless of one's view of the benefits achieved by such a ruling, is it right for the judiciary to overstep the boundaries of their power? Doesn't that set a dangerous precedent for cases to come, in which judges can mandate all different types of laws that find no clear Constitutional basis just because they have the power to do so? What would your view be if the court used a similarly legislative approach to ruling on the constitutional basis of a law or type of law that you don't agree with? That's my point -- the ends don't justify the means, because doing so unravels any procedure and balance that we have in our democracy.

No, it doesn't. You have provided no reasoning whatsoever, other than assuming that it's my belief that cases such as Brown v. Board was incorrectly decided just because I question the authenticity of Roe.

I never confused any cases with Roe. I explained that I didn't mention Griswold because I felt that it wasn't necessary in the context of discussing this case; I mentioned how I found the "general right to privacy" view to be bizarre, but that wasn't the point that I brought up about Roe. Go back and read my post more carefully.
Your statement was should courts be able to force the legalisation of a controversial practice?

When boiled down to that, it is the same question as whether or not they should have banned racial discrimination.

Though this whole thread is blatantly biased against the decision.

Your statement was should courts be able to force the legalisation of a controversial practice?

When boiled down to that, it is the same question as whether or not they should have allowed racial discrimination.

Though this whole thread is blatantly biased against the decision.
No, that's not what my statement was. At all. I questioned whether or not courts should be able to rule on a subject without any constitutional merit for it, regardless of a person's views of the benefits that would be achieved by such a ruling. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination. The 14th amendment explicity lays out that no person can be discriminated against on the basis of race. Abortion rights and racial civil rights are two different beasts on a judicial level.

You make half-assed assumptions and give statements such as your last one in the quoted post without expanding upon your opinion or giving any sort of examples. I don't really see how that contributes to any sort of debate or making a point of any sort.

No, that's not what my statement was. At all. I questioned whether or not courts should be able to rule on a subject without any constitutional merit for it, regardless of a person's views of the benefits that would be achieved by such a ruling. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination. The 14th amendment explicity lays out that no person can be discriminated against on the basis of race. Abortion rights and racial civil rights are two different beasts on a judicial level.
The 15th says it explicitly, but the 14th covers it.

The 15th says it explicitly, but the 14th covers it.
OK...Once again, thank you for making a point about this topic's subject.

No, that's not what my statement was. At all. I questioned whether or not courts should be able to rule on a subject without any constitutional merit for it, regardless of a person's views of the benefits that would be achieved by such a ruling.
Just because you don't understand the Constitution or what the Court uses for the basis of their rulings doesn't mean they don't.

And XIV has nothing to do with race, that is Amendment XV.

Just because you don't understand the Constitution or what the Court uses for the basis of their rulings doesn't mean they don't.

And XIV has nothing to do with race, that is Amendment XV.
Ha! You tell me that I don't understand the Constitution and then you tell me that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with race? You do realize that the 14th amendment is the basis for all court rulings when it comes to your precious racial civil rights cases, don't you?

I think it is you, my friend, who needs to better understand the Constitution and what the Court uses for the basis of its rulings.

Ha! You tell me that I don't understand the Constitution and then you tell me that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with race? You do realize that the 14th amendment is the basis for all court rulings when it comes to your precious racial civil rights cases, don't you?

I think it is you, my friend, who needs to better understand the Constitution and what the Court uses for the basis of its rulings.
Doesn't mean it has anything to do with race.

Doesn't mean it has anything to do with race.
Wow. OK. Then it doesn't have anything to do with abortion, too.

The OP continues to make false and misleading statements like:

"At all. I questioned whether or not courts should be able to rule on a subject without any constitutional merit for it"

and

"it right for the judiciary to overstep the boundaries of their power?"

It is useless to discuss Roe or any other case in terms of the flights of fantasy of the fictional world of your 'novelized' posts.

You may as well say "Given that the sky is always green, isnt it dishonest that painters usually paint it blue?"

Wow. OK. Then it doesn't have anything to do with abortion, too.
Go away and study up on shit before trying to start a debate.

The OP continues to make false and misleading statements like:

"At all. I questioned whether or not courts should be able to rule on a subject without any constitutional merit for it"

and

"it right for the judiciary to overstep the boundaries of their power?"

It is useless to discuss Roe or any other case in terms of the flights of fantasy of the fictional world of your 'novelized' posts.

You may as well say "Given that the sky is always green, isnt it dishonest that painters usually paint it blue?"
Well, it's nice to see that you and your true blue "evolving liberty" friend continue to not give even one tiny reason defending the ruling.

Teh_pantless_hero: Learn to debate before you decide to engage yourself in one. You have not made one point about the ruling or the points that I have made other than one comment about me not believing in the Courts settling a controversial issue, which I corrected you on. That's not how you debate. No, the 14th amendment never mentions race, but, Mr. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it never mentions abortion either. It does, however, according to the Supreme Court, imply rights related to both. Whether or not it says it out and out is not the point. Of course it doesn't. But what the hell does that have to do with anything?

The only points that you have made are that is blatantly obvious what your position is on the ruling, thus any debating with your uninformed self is pointless.

The only points that you have made are that is blatantly obvious what your position is on the ruling, thus any debating with your uninformed self is pointless.
That's a nice excuse to abstain from debating: you're wrong, so why would I debate with you?! I'll just make useless comments insulting your intelligence instead!

Um...duh, my position on the ruling is obvious. Intentionally so. If you really believe that I'm wrong, it'd be nice to hear you say why, instead of bitching like a third grader about how "you don't know anything!", when in fact you have not stated one intelligent thing in this whole post.

That's a nice excuse to abstain from debating: you're wrong, so why would I debate with you?! I'll just make useless comments insulting your intelligence instead!

Um...duh, my position on the ruling is obvious. Intentionally so. If you really believe that I'm wrong, it'd be nice to hear you say why, instead of bitching like a third grader about how "you don't know anything!", when in fact you have not stated one intelligent thing in this whole post.
I didn't say you are wrong, I asid you are entirely biased with no ability to see any other side. An dyou still don't know anything. How does the 14th Amendment only apply to race? What is the 14th Amendment? What all does the Supreme Court base rulings on?

Well, it's nice to see that you and your true blue "evolving liberty" friend continue to not give even one tiny reason defending the ruling.

Teh_pantless_hero: Learn to debate before you decide to engage yourself in one. You have not made one point about the ruling or the points that I have made other than one comment about me not believing in the Courts settling a controversial issue, which I corrected you on. That's not how you debate. No, the 14th amendment never mentions race, but, Mr. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it never mentions abortion either. It does, however, according to the Supreme Court, imply rights related to both. Whether or not it says it out and out is not the point. Of course it doesn't. But what the hell does that have to do with anything?


Defending it against what?

You beg the question, again and again and again.

You haven't made a substantial attack on the ruling and you're veiling your statements as questions, which is disingenuous and fallacious on its face.

Defending it against what?

You beg the question, again and again and again.

You haven't made a substantial attack on the ruling and you're veiling your statements as questions, which is disingenuous and fallacious on its face.
Read my first post again, please. I question the authenticity of the "first trimester" ruling in relation to the "general right to privacy" as well as the sudden appearance of the state's right to regulate the procedure at this time.

I didn't say you are wrong, I asid you are entirely biased with no ability to see any other side. An dyou still don't know anything. How does the 14th Amendment only apply to race? What is the 14th Amendment? What all does the Supreme Court base rulings on?
You never gave another side. How can I biased when you're not even arguing with me?

I never said that 14th amendment only applies to race. Not once.

I didn't know Lenin did that! Plus 5 for Lenin. He's still at -49583 for War Communism, the Checka, and perverting the great moral experiment of our time into a brutal dictatorship... but hey, credit where credit is due.

Hey now, Stalin fucked it up. Lenin just got screwed.


and I say that with nothing more than a feeling to back my facts.

Hmm... I made points that attacked the ruling in my original post, and then responded to a comment by a poster that basically said that the ends justify the means, and suddenly those posts became the entirety of my points in this post, completely disregarding the IP...Interesting.

Well, now I see why so many people demonstrate in favor of Roe year after year. They don't want to think about issues related to Constitutional law or the abusing of the separation of powers or even argue in favor of the ruling. In their eyes, the ends justify the means, so let's not even think about the means. Interesting that if conservative justices were to have made a ruling similar to Roe, only one that was highly restrictive of the abortion procedure, you'd never hear the end of choicers bitching about the imperialism of the judiciary and the fascist qualities of the Supreme Court and so on and so forth.

Not only was roe decided well - the more precedent for the right to privacy and the more sensible rulings the better - but the notion of ultimate judicial review offset only by constitutional amendment is extremely beneficial and sine qua non for the preservation of rights.

Roe v. Wade is probably the most controversial United States Supreme Court decision in recent memory.
You think Roe's controversy is recent? Look into cases such as Kelo v. New London, the Gitmo ruling and the rulings on enemy noncombatants.

Now there's some controversy [/threadjack]

Not only was roe decided well - the more precedent for the right to privacy and the more sensible rulings the better - but the notion of ultimate judicial review offset only by constitutional amendment is extremely beneficial and sine qua non for the preservation of rights.
That's kind of a scary concept...What happens if the court becomes completely dominated by anti-privacy rights conservatives? Then what would your view of the concept of "ultimate judicial review" be?

That's kind of a scary concept...What happens if the court becomes completely dominated by anti-privacy rights conservatives? Then what would your view of the concept of "ultimate judicial review" be?


What part of the post didnt you read?

Was it the "offset only by constitutional amendment" part?

Must have been.

What part of the post didnt you read?

Was it the "offset only by constitutional amendment" part?

Must have been.
Are you kidding me? Do you know how hard it is to get one constitutional amendment passed, let alone several everytime the court makes a bullshit decision? So you justify judicial imperialism by saying that, "you can always pass a constitutional amendment..." You incorrectly act as if doing so is easy and that it should be done often. The Constitution is only meant to offer basic rights. So, in other words, the Court should be able to pull shit out of their asses, and thus, if enough people think that they were wrong, a constitutional amendment governing things that really aren't basic rights anyway has to be passed. What a mockery of the judicial and Consitutional systems have you made by advocating such practices.

Are you kidding me? Do you know how hard it is to get one constitutional amendment passed, let alone several everytime the court makes a bullshit decision? So you justify judicial imperialism
And this thread is over. You lose.
You neither understand the Court nor the American government system. That is along with being an opinionated, ignorant sheep in the Republican pasture.

And this thread is over. You lose.
You neither understand the Court nor the American government system. That is along with being an opinionated, ignorant sheep in the Republican pasture.
You are beyond ridiculous. My reply was in response to a statement made by New Granda advocating judicial activism.

I'm not a Republican, first of all, but I can tell that you're a highly combatative liberal, and thus, you're impossible to argue with. You've proven this by never actually giving an argument; rather, all that you have done is say that I don't know shit but you know everything, yet never giving an example or an explanation. You lose.

You are beyond ridiculous. My reply was in response to a statement made by New Granda advocating judicial activism.
Judicial activism is what? The court making a ruling contrary to the beliefs of the Republican party. As such, I advocate judicial activism. There is no such thing as judicial activism, just judges making a ruling on whether or not something is constitutional. They cannot legalise things; they can only overturn an unConstitutional law and by proxy all laws like it.
Not only that, but his posts had nothing to do with judicial activism unless you stand with the Republican viewpoint that the very nature of the judiciary is activist.

I'm not a Republican, first of all, but I can tell that you're a highly combatative liberal, and thus, you're impossible to argue with. You've proven this by never actually giving an argument; rather, all that you have done is say that I don't know shit but you know everything, yet never giving an example or an explanation. You lose.
You also refused to answer any question I asked you.

Judicial activism is what? The court making a ruling contrary to the beliefs of the Republican party. As such, I advocate judicial activism. There is no such thing as judicial activism, just judges making a ruling on whether or not something is constitutional. They cannot legalise things; they can only overturn an unConstitutional law and by proxy all laws like it.
I'm not Republican, you idiot. All of you die-hard liberals seem to think that anyone who disagrees with the actions of a court automatically a) makes you one of those truly evil people called "Republicans" (as bad as Republicans who use "liberal" like a curse word) and b) means you oppose what the ruling achieved. Judicial activism does exist in the form of the judges ruling that something is or isn't a Constitutional right without any legal basis for doing so, thereby legalizing and legislating a type of law based on their own opinion.
You also refused to answer any question I asked you.
I'd love, as usual, to see an example. But, I'm beginning to believe that you don't understand such a concept.

EDIT: I answered your question on racial discrimination cases, I answered your question about judicial activism. Anything else you have posted has been either a) telling me I don't know what I'm talking about or b) saying that I'm a Republican.

To be honest, Roe vs Wade is now largely meaningless. It has been limited, revised and shunted around so much that in most cases it has lost any impact it might have had. Some states, like Alabama for example, only have one abortion provider in the entire state, which, on top of the costs, means that abortion for most women is a severe impracticality.

Abortion should've been settled by the legislature, not the courts, it's opened up too many faultlines and allowed right-wingers and extremists to purvey nonsense, misinformation and outright propaganda against abortion, whilst simultaneously being able to claim that it's "undemocratic". And I speak as a supporter of abortion rights and a virulent opponent of these sorts of people.

To be honest, Roe vs Wade is now largely meaningless. It has been limited, revised and shunted around so much that in most cases it has lost any impact it might have had. Some states, like Alabama for example, only have one abortion provider in the entire state, which, on top of the costs, means that abortion for most women is a severe impracticality.

Abortion should've been settled by the legislature, not the courts, it's opened up too many faultlines and allowed right-wingers and extremists to purvey nonsense, misinformation and outright propaganda against abortion, whilst simultaneously being able to claim that it's "undemocratic". And I speak as a supporter of abortion rights and a virulent opponent of these sorts of people.
Ah...an intelligent opinion. Finally. I agree that it should have been left to the legislature, and that the fact it was decided by the courts does a lot to discredit it. Personally, I think it definitely should be allowed at all times for health threats and cases of rape/abuse/incest, etc. and to an extent for other reasons. My reasoning does, I realize, seem to line up with the ruling. Does that I mean advocate how it was decided? Nope. But that's something militant anti-everyone else liberals will never understand.

The phrase "judicial activism" is a BS term, especially in terms of the supreme court. It is used by a side, usually the right, when the Court makes a decision it doesn't agree with.

here's the thing. It is the job of the supreme court to decide, based on THEIR wisdom and THEIR opinion, what are the express and implied rights within the constitution. If a court, using the power to decide based on THEIR opinion makes a choice that YOU don't agree with that is not judicial activism. That's them having an opinion that differs from yours.

If a justice believes, honestly believes, that what they think is correct, and makes a ruling based on that, then that is not activism, that is the Justices doing their job, just in a way you don't agree with.

The only way you can demonstrate that this is activism of a sort is if you could show that the justices in Roe didn't actually believe what they were saying was part of the constitution but did it because they thought it should be.

Now good luck proving that. And until you do, put away the far overused term of "judicial activism". There is nothing wrong with a justice making a ruling based on what he or she believes is in the constitution, even if you don't believe in it. It's their job, not yours.

Artemis, you continually amaze me with your knowledge of constitutional law.

I bet you are going to study civil liberties and go work for the ACLU when you grow up.

Oh for the love of god....

I'm 99% sure that this dude is just a troll, but just in case...

Yes, I know constitutional law. That may be because I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL.

The phrase "judicial activism" is a BS term, especially in terms of the supreme court. It is used by a side, usually the right, when the Court makes a decision it doesn't agree with.

here's the thing. It is the job of the supreme court to decide, based on THEIR wisdom and THEIR opinion, what are the express and implied rights within the constitution. If a court, using the power to decide based on THEIR opinion makes a choice that YOU don't agree with that is not judicial activism. That's them having an opinion that differs from yours.

If a justice believes, honestly believes, that what they think is correct, and makes a ruling based on that, then that is not activism, that is the Justices doing their job, just in a way you don't agree with.

The only way you can demonstrate that this is activism of a sort is if you could show that the justices in Roe didn't actually believe what they were saying was part of the constitution but did it because they thought it should be.

Now good luck proving that. And until you do, put away the far overused term of "judicial activism". There is nothing wrong with a justice making a ruling based on what he or she believes is in the constitution, even if you don't believe in it. It's their job, not yours.
By your definition of what the phrase really should be used for, here's quote from Blackmun, who lead the majority opinion in the case:
...you will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.
He seems to be admitting that the parameters set up by the ruling were loose and placed without much decisive reasoning. Obviously, you'll never get a full confession out of any of the justices in the ruling that they intentionally used the decision to legalize abortion rights due to their own, personal views on the matter. Personally, in my opinion, the quote speaks volumes about the authenticity of the ruling and what was going through their heads when they made it, but, alas, it's not an out-and-out confession of activism by your definition, so it really can't be counted.

The word, as it's being used by conservatives describing their distaste with liberal rulings, basically implies an extremely loose interpretation of the Constitution. So loose, in fact, that they see no legal justification for any such ruling, and thus, it is a feat of "activism" on the part of the majority opinion. Therefore, I see it as a justifiable phrase, because it denotes the shaky legal justification for such a type of ruling, although it is overused and misused often, I will admit.

I didn't know Lenin did that! Plus 5 for Lenin. He's still at -49583 for War Communism, the Checka, and perverting the great moral experiment of our time into a brutal dictatorship... but hey, credit where credit is due.
Well, hey, Stalin was already responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders, so why NOT legalize abortion?


oooooohhhhh, BURN!

seriously, don't try and debate that, it was a joke, and I'm not gonna bother replying

One, you forgot the nice 9th, you know the one that states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This allows the Court to read in a right to privacy eventhough such was not actually written into the text of the document.

Two, your attempt to say the justices were arbatrary in deciding 1 trimester through 3 trimester timelines ignores the reasoning behind such timelines. As the case notes, the ruling turns upon three points.

1. Does the state have a right to legislate morality (i.e. if we make abortions legal, women will be out having sex like crazy). SCOTUS decided it did not.

2. Does the state have an interest in protecting life, even life unborn? SCOTUS decided that yes, the state does indeed have a legit right in doing so, but as historically abortions were made illegal well AFTER the creation of the Constitution, the framers probably did not intend for the unborn to retain full rights as granted under the Constitution.

3. Does a woman have the right to make decisions about her own health care and privacy? SCOTUS decided that yes, she does.

The ruling about the trimester system came from, as SCOTUS put it, attempting to balance the right of the individual against the legitimate interest of the state. And since neither medical, philospohical, or theological fields could come to agreement about just when life begins, SCOTUS declined to do so either, but came to a working timeline based upon what was medical knowledge of the time about when a child could consevably survive and be said to be "alive". Once this was so, SCOTUS felt that the interst of the state to protect life trumped a woman's right to choice unless in extream circumstances.

It was clunky, and it did streach things a bit, but it was thought out and based upon what had been decided before and the text of the Constitution.

More to point. If you want to address the potential "activism" in roe, for the context of legalizing abortion, for a...hypothetical intellectual pursuit go ahead. If you want to try to dismantle the rationale of Roe in order to point to why the right to abortion should not exist, based on Roe's decision, don't both.

The rationale in finding a right to an abortion, as articulated in Roe is no longer relevant. It was restated in Casey. The current justification, and rationale, for the right to an abortion is from Casey.

So a discussion on whether Roe got it right or wrong must recognize the fact that Roe is not governing law anymore, Casey is.