Supreme Court ruling revives constitutional principles

NEWYou can now listen to FoxNews articles.

For 49 years, the US Supreme Court is Roev. I've had a hard time justifying my decision at Wade. However, it was difficult to protect the defenseless. Even the late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed serious anxiety. Nowhere in the text, structure, and meaning of the Constitution can we find the right to privacy for abortion. It is neither explicit nor implicit. At Roe, we invented the right that justice does not exist. This was a disappointing mistake. 

It's never too late to correct a mistake. At Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, The current Supreme Court has the courage to overturn an illegal ruling long ago and return decision-making power to the state as it did before 1973. I decided. This constitutes recovery. A democratic process in which representatives elected on behalf of the people decide on issues in their respective jurisdictions.  

Because of its honor, the majority of opinions rule out the legitimate concerns of many who feared that this opinion would affect other valuable rights. did. Judges fully made it clear in their words that this ruling applies only to abortion. The content of the decision does not affect other rights, such as contraception or same-sex marriage, which are derived from the Constitution and are protected by the Constitution, which are essentially different rights. 

SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE IN LANDMARK OPINION

 I understand my anger, but it's being abused. Currently, the suspension is not outlawed nationwide. In some states, abortion is permitted with little or no restrictions. Elsewhere, the exact opposite happens. If citizens dislike the rules of their respective states, they are free to change the rules by complaining in the voting box and electing a new representative. This is how democracy works in the Constitutional Republic. 

In the face of threatened violence and harassment, it takes courage for members of the High Court to stand up firmly. I needed it. After a sneaky leak of draft opinion seven weeks ago. The protest outside the house of justice was an illegal attempt to unfairly affect them with explicit threats. Sadly, Justice Secretary Merrick Garland did not take steps to enforce a law that criminalizes obstructing ongoing judicial proceedings.  

House Speaker Nancy Peroshi's enthusiastic remarks immediately after the Dobbs decision was announcedis equally shameful. She condemned the integrity of conservative justice and never stopped to consider their principled loyalty to the law and the Constitution. 

Peroshi has declared that it is exorbitant to overturn the nearly 50-year-old precedent. According to records maintained by the parliamentary library, the speaker, not the historian, is unaware of the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned his precedent more than 230 times. 

By her own twisted criteria, Peroshi is Plessy v. I opposed Ferguson's reversal. This is a disgusting decision of 1896 in favor of racial separation. It lasted for 58 painful years until the Supreme Court understood its implications and broke its own shameful precedent. Will Peroshi support Dread Scott vs. Sandford who supported slavery just because she stood as a precedent? of course not. The precedent doctrine known as "staring decision" is not absolute. It's good until it doesn't. 

According to a recent FoxNews survey, the majority of Americans support Roe's right to abort by , but with strict restrictions. There is an important warning. 54% believe that abortion should be banned after the first 15 weeks. This is consistent with Mississippi's law that caused the Dobbs incident. Just half of the people surveyed believe that they should be banned after six weeks. The numbers vary from state to state, emphasizing the wise argument that the issue should be determined there. 

It was not surprising that President Joe Byden immediately seized the opportunity to initiate a political frenzy for the benefit of the party. Standing in front of the camera and Mike, he claims it was all due to former President Donald Trump and became a Democrat in the November midterm elections when his party faces a loss of parliamentary control. I urged everyone to vote. 

Byden resented and claimed that the Supreme Court had "deprived him of his basic constitutional rights." "That's not right.The High Court has determined that such rights do not exist anywhere in the Constitution. Weiden does not understand that fictitious rights cannot be revoked. 

Click here to get the Opinion Newsletter

Former President Barak Obama decides on the Supreme Court Only when he denounced and despised, he fueled the division. The problem would be left to the "capriciousness of politicians and ideologies." Obama can insult the official duties of the elected officials, ignoring that he is himself. But that is our typical way of running democracy. 

Click here to get the FOX News app

Americans discontinue the country If you want to create a right, you can: We do so by creating, passing, and approving constitutional amendments. There is nothing to stop them except the willingness to act on their beliefs. Alternatively, they can work in their state to pass laws that reflect their views. 

Until then, Americans need to, at a later time, respect the Supreme Court's decision to ultimately restore our constitutional principles.  

Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett