I agree that the Congress should pass laws of the people's will. However, I would expect that certain people on the far right and far left would be surprised at what people want in their country. Once we end legalised bribery here in America then we can proceed with making laws for the people, by the people.

All fine, except that the right to privacy is valid, and it is the Supreme's job to defend it against the tyranny of the majority. I believe they also should make some sense of the difference in laws from one State to another. I agree that the Court should not be defending abortion per se, and they do actually avoid that point. They have only legalized abortion in effect.

"Overturning Roe v. Wade is not about banning abortion; it is about returning the power to make these decisions to the people, via the elected branch of government, and taking it away from the imperial judiciary."

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This simple sentence should be repeated over and over again, to educate the willfully ignorant who are so passionately committed to the notion that Roe "legalized" abortion and that repealing it would make abortions illegal and unavailable.

The "right to privacy" is not a part of the Constitution. These Founding Fathers fellas were pretty darned bright, and I'm always amazed at the claim that they somehow just 'forgot' to clearly state what they obviously meant. With a document that is so specific and which addresses so much, anticipating the future need to amend it as needed, do we think they just 'overlooked' this little issue of privacy? Forgot it? Huuh?

No, it took an activist unelected judge to first discern a 'penumbra' to the Constitution---an invisible 'halo' surrounding it, which he alone somehow was gifted enough to see and understand. This unspoken, unwritten, 'aura' of an unspecified 'right to privacy' was so clear, who cared if it really existed or not? Because we NEEDED that 'penumbra' to try to justify something that was just not there.

And then, 'emanating' from this invisible, unwritten, unspoken, previously unidentified, 'halo' of an unspecified 'right' he found that the 'emanation' included the right to kill unwanted children, as long as they were killed at an age which was also, curiously enough, also not in the Constitution.

OK, so it pretty much defied and contradicted a REAL right, which WAS stated---the "right to life". We just have to overlook that the Founding Fathers thought a "right to life" was so important it had to be specifically stated, and leap to a very personal conclusion that they would have included a "right to end life" if they had just thought of it. Silly old Fathers. They put together a guiding document that has provided the foundation for the longest-lasting and strongest form of government in the history of Man, in times of such cataclysmic change that no one could have foreseen what that document would have to cover two hundred years later, a document which has stood the test of time, but FORGOT to put in the part about privacy, and it extending so far it allows one to end a life as long as it is ended, I guess, in private.

Funny, isn't it, how this is the only instance of the Founding Fathers contradicting themselves? All those words, all those idea, and they managed to keep it all straight till they somehow just screwed it all up and put in one part that out-and-out contradicted another part. Another part they didn't put in, but we somehow just KNOW they wanted to, meant to, and for some reason just spaced it out. Maybe it was Happy Hour.

But the liberals depend very heavily on 'knowledge' and 'information' which cannot be gleaned from normal sources. They depend on the ability to see into the hearts and minds of others, to repeatedly state what the motives of other really are, no matter what the others say or their actions indicate. They have made a pretty strong committment to all sorts of positions based on this supernatural ability to read what may be 'penumbras' and their 'emanations' from all sorts of people.

This is how they know we all HATED Clinton, instead of merely thinking the President should follow the law. This is how they knew that Scooter Libby mentioned Valerie Plame to "get even with" and possibly "destroy" Plame and her husband. It's quite a gift, but forgive me if I don't buy into it. I'm one of those stodgy middle Americans who prefer to look at what is there and not imagine what is not, just because I want it to be.

In other words, the bane of liberals.