Either you advocate judicial activism or you don't. If you support judicial activism re the causes and rights you favor, and decry judicial activism re the causes and rights you don't, then you're a hypocrite.
Yes, Roe was an example of judicial activism that extended rights where none had clearly existed before.
Then if you support Roe, you advocate judicial activism. Glad to see you finally admit it.
BUT SO WAS HELLER.
How so? Heller was based on Amendment II. Nothing activist about that. It is the same Amendment II that has been in existence for over 230 years. Compare that to Roe which is based upon . . . uh . . . um . . . gee, what exactly is it based upon?
Now forget for a moment whether you agreed or disagreed with those cases when they were decided. The reality is that millions now rely on the Heller decision which found an individual RKBA. Millions now rely on Roe
Millions also relied upon Plessy. And Dred Scott. So by your asinine reasoning, those rulings should still be in effect today.
Roe which found a woman's individual right to decide for herself whether to bear a child.
Enough with the lies, Jazzhead. You know damn well that is not true. Roe is about whether a state has the right to regulate abortion before the baby is 24 weeks old. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to get pregnant.
A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them.
Uh, no. A Conservative jurists places self-imposed limits on his power by relying on the Constitution as the basis for his/her rulings instead of imposing his/her will on a nation. A Conservative jurist puts his/her opinions aside on how they want a case to go, yielding instead to the contract that this nation adopted over two centuries ago.
An activist jurist doesn't give a damn, and will upset the applecart no matter how many folks' established liberty is denied.
Not sure what apple carts have to do with this. But the Roe court invented a temporary right out of thin air. That fact is certain. Their reason for doing so is irrelevant.
The jurist who overturns Roe or Heller is a "tyrant in black robes". The jurist who respects precedent understands the proper role of the judiciary in our Republic.
I had no idea that the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision was handed down by nine tyrants. But I'll put you down as one vote against the Constitution, one vote in favor of the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson.