ANOTHER LOOK AT THE UN-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ROE v WADE

Hot on the heels of his Watergate success, Bob Woodward co-wrote a book on the SCOTUS in 1979, (with Scott Armstrong).

It's titled THE BRETHREN, and it's regarded as one of the best books EVER on the SCOTUS. It details the Burger Court and many of their decisions and all the great and historic personalities and crises of that court.

Ultra-liberal Jeff Toobin wrote another book last year on the SCOTUS specifically because it had been nearly 30 years since Woodward & Armstrong's great book had been published and he and his publishers felt it was time to do another on today's SCOTUS.

Woodward & Armstrong detail many of the "behind the scene" dramas that went into historic decisions - INCLUDING ROE v WADE.

I have posted JPEGS scans of two fascinating excerpts on this decision - EXCERPTS WHICH PROVE THAT THE DECISION WAS FUNDAMENTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL, or "EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL. (Just click on them to see them larger.)

What they prove is that the decision was NOT BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ON BRENNAN'S INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF MEDICINE.

QUOTE #1 (page 271):

" Harry Blackmun returned to Rochester, Minnesota for the summer of 1972 and immersed himself in research at the huge Mayo Clinic medical library. Rochester and the clinic were home to Blackmun, a safe harbor after a stormy term.

...In his summer office... Blackmun began to organize the research that would bolster his abortion opinion. ... Blackmun pondered the relevance of the Hippocratic oath, which prohibits doctors from performing abortions. He also wanted to understand the positions of the medical organizations and to learn more about the advances in sustaining the life of a fetus outside of the womb."

(ALSO DISGUSTING: His research was intended to bolster his pre-formed opinion, not to form it!)

QUOTE #2 (page 203):

Blackmun was convinced that of all the justices he alone had the medical background and sufficient patience to sift through the voluminous record for the scientific data on which to base a decision.

The SCOTUS is NOT meant to be a trier of fact or a finder of fact, but a decider of constitutionality. Justices should decide on the US Constitution and not their "medical knowledge".

When Justices of the SCOTUS go beyond this role, then they have over-stepped their constitutional powers, and any and all decisions which are so based are not lawful.

In this case, not only is Roe v Wade unconstitutional and unlawful, it is immoral.

It was a sad day for humanity. Millions of American babies have been murdered as a result. Most of whom might have been born and adopted. Living full lives. (And doing the work today's living Americans won't do!) And more importantly, an un-sarcastically - just being alive.

How sad. How sad, and unconstitutional.