Donald Trump Jr launches 2nd amendment task force to fight the left

[bigrebnc1775]

^^^^this^^^^

Yes you have it ass backwards

 

[Smokin' OP]

And again....

Explain "common sense" gun control.....you didn't reply to that.

Felons, and the dangerously mentally ill cannot buy, own or carry guns.....that is all we need once democrats like you stop releasing violent gun offenders over and over again....

FOS, as usual.

So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2018

February 28 2017
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

Specifically, what Obama did was order to Social Security Administration to take the list of people who were deemed so severely mentally ill that they are unfit to handle their own disability benefits and forward it to the FBI. The FBI was then supposed to incorporate that list in the background checks used to disqualify people from gun ownership.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

The vote was part of a larger suite of Congressional Review Act measures that passed early in the Trump administration. The CRA allows Congress to overrule recently enacted regulatory initiatives passed by the executive branch. CRA bills can’t be filibustered, but they do need to be signed by the president.

 

[Open Bolt]

You guys never do.

That's because there are never any arguments presented that are an effective challenge to our position.

 

[Open Bolt]

FOS, as usual.

I'm guessing that you cannot point out any errors in any of his posts.

February 28 2017
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

Specifically, what Obama did was order to Social Security Administration to take the list of people who were deemed so severely mentally ill that they are unfit to handle their own disability benefits and forward it to the FBI. The FBI was then supposed to incorporate that list in the background checks used to disqualify people from gun ownership.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

That is not an example of dangerous people being prevented from having guns.

That is an example of progressives violating people's civil liberties for no reason (no reason other than the fact that progressives actually enjoy violating people's civil liberties that is).

Not being able to balance a checkbook does not mean that a disabled person is a danger to themselves or others.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's because there are never any arguments presented that are an effective challenge to our position.

If that makes you feel better.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Hey, 2A Proponents, if Roe gets axed along the lines of a flawed emphasis on an implied "right to privacy" will you be OK if that is expanded to national gun registries? You may have the right to own a gun but you don't have a right to keep it secret.

Just curious how the RIght's push to a more state-centered control type government sits with you.

 

[2aguy]

FOS, as usual.

So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2018

February 28 2017
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

Specifically, what Obama did was order to Social Security Administration to take the list of people who were deemed so severely mentally ill that they are unfit to handle their own disability benefits and forward it to the FBI. The FBI was then supposed to incorporate that list in the background checks used to disqualify people from gun ownership.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

The vote was part of a larger suite of Congressional Review Act measures that passed early in the Trump administration. The CRA allows Congress to overrule recently enacted regulatory initiatives passed by the executive branch. CRA bills can’t be filibustered, but they do need to be signed by the president.

Moron.......only a tiny number of people are dangerously mentally ill, the vast majority are passive or dangerous only to themselves....you asswipes want to use everything you can to ban guns for normal people, including using the psychiatric profession to do you dirty work....

The various mass public shooters, lately, have been well known to the police and even the FBI, and they didn't do anything to stop them...you moron.

 

[2aguy]

Hey, 2A Proponents, if Roe gets axed along the lines of a flawed emphasis on an implied "right to privacy" will you be OK if that is expanded to national gun registries? You may have the right to own a gun but you don't have a right to keep it secret.

Just curious how the RIght's push to a more state-centered control type government sits with you.

Killing babies was never a Right. Owning a gun is....

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Killing babies was never a Right. Owning a gun is....

I never said you couldn't own guns. I just said if there is no right to privacy in the Constitution and that is how Roe is overturned then it will apply to guns as well. You might have to face a nationwide gun registry.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Moron.......only a tiny number of people are dangerously mentally ill, the vast majority are passive or dangerous only to themselves....you asswipes want to use everything you can to ban guns for normal people, including using the psychiatric profession to do you dirty work....

The various mass public shooters, lately, have been well known to the police and even the FBI, and they didn't do anything to stop them...you moron.

That's a gross oversimplification of how the State can deal with the mentally ill.

 

[Open Bolt]

If that makes you feel better.

Conservatives are always comfortable with reality.

Hey, 2A Proponents, if Roe gets axed along the lines of a flawed emphasis on an implied "right to privacy" will you be OK if that is expanded to national gun registries? You may have the right to own a gun but you don't have a right to keep it secret.

We deny you permission to implement a national gun registry.

Just curious how the RIght's push to a more state-centered control type government sits with you.

I wonder where the abortion movement would be today if they had bothered to have respect for the rights of men too.

The movement might still be alive right now.

Oh well. Not my problem.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

We deny you permission to implement a national gun registry.

On what grounds? If you don't enjoy a right to privacy there's absolutely no reason why you can deny any such thing.

I wonder where the abortion movement would be today if they had bothered to have respect for the rights of men too.

Why am I not surprised at you being a "Mens Rights" kinda guy.

Oh well. Not my problem.

Precedent has a tendency to become a problem real fast.

Enjoy!

 

[2aguy]

I never said you couldn't own guns. I just said if there is no right to privacy in the Constitution and that is how Roe is overturned then it will apply to guns as well. You might have to face a nationwide gun registry.

Nope.......5th Amendment ..........

Then you have the equal protection under the law.....felons do not have to register their illegal guns...do you know about that little thing?

Haynes v United States.....

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If criminals don't have to register their illegal guns, it makes no sense that normal people would have to register theirs.......also, you can't be forced to incriminate yourself under the 5th Amendment..........which means registration is unConstitutional....

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Nope.......5th Amendment ..........

Then you have the equal protection under the law.....felons do not have to register their illegal guns...do you know about that little thing?

Haynes v United States.....

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If criminals don't have to register their illegal guns, it makes no sense that normal people would have to register theirs.......also, you can't be forced to incriminate yourself under the 5th Amendment..........which means registration is unConstitutional....

I love how secure you guys are in your "rights". Meanwhile 50 years worth of settled law (as attested to by just about every sitting SCOTUS justice during their hearings) is being dismantled right before our eyes.

Good luck with this.

 

[2aguy]

I love how secure you guys are in your "rights". Meanwhile 50 years worth of settled law (as attested to by just about every sitting SCOTUS justice during their hearings) is being dismantled right before our eyes.

Good luck with this.

No....50 years of bad law, just like Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.....both were wrong as is Roe...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No....50 years of bad law, just like Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.....both were wrong as is Roe...

Why was it bad law again? (Remember: don't say anything about implied right to privacy!)

 

[2aguy]

Why was it bad law again? (Remember: don't say anything about implied right to privacy!)

They made it up. No where in the Constitution are you allowed to murder innocent human beings.....

 

[Failzero]

I never said you couldn't own guns. I just said if there is no right to privacy in the Constitution and that is how Roe is overturned then it will apply to guns as well. You might have to face a nationwide gun registry.

Register Socialists not Firearms

 

[2aguy]

Why was it bad law again? (Remember: don't say anything about implied right to privacy!)

Here Some thoughts from Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others...

Just look at what pro-choice legal scholars say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism." Laurence Tribe wrote "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote "[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
----------

Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

“The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

North Carolina Law Review, 1985

---

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
….

“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”

“The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002

“[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

“Liberals, Don’t Make Her an Icon” Washington Post July 10, 2003.

---

William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”

“Unbecoming Justice Blackmun,” Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.

---

John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School

Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
….

“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

“The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).

---

Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post

Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”

“Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

---

Richard Cohen — Washington Post

“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”
….

“As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.

“If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
….

Roe “is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”
….

“Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”

“Support Choice, Not Roe” Washington Post, October 19, 2005.

---

Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School

Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.”

Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.

---

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.”

“The Supreme Court 1995 Term: FOREWORD: LEAVING THINGS UNDECIDED,” 110 Harvard Law Review 6, 20 (1996).

“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”

Quoted in: Brian McGuire, “Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing,” New York Sun November 15, 2005

---

Jeffrey Rosen — Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic

“In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.
….

“Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it.”

“Worst Choice” The New Republic February 24, 2003

---

Michael Kinsley

“Against all odds (and, I’m afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court.
….

“…a freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami.”

“Bad Choice” The New Republic, June 13, 1994.

“Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway.”

“The Right’s Kind of Activism,” Washington Post, November 14, 2004.

---

Kermit Roosevelt — University of Pennsylvania Law School

“t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.

“This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited to the protection of the 14th Amendment.
….

“By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values.”

“Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’,” Washington Post, January 22, 2003.

---

Archibald Cox — JFK's Solicitor General, Harvard Law School

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution”

The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, pp. 113-114 (1976)

The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion to be constitutionally protected, and thus voided state laws banning it, was a horrible decision morally and legally. So when President Obama praises the decision on its 39th anniversary, he either shows a strikingly poor understanding of constitutional law…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Here Some thoughts from Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others...

Just look at what pro-choice legal scholars say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism." Laurence Tribe wrote "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote "[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
----------

Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

“The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

North Carolina Law Review, 1985

---

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
….

“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”

“The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002

“[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

“Liberals, Don’t Make Her an Icon” Washington Post July 10, 2003.

---

William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”

“Unbecoming Justice Blackmun,” Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.

---

John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School

Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
….

“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

“The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).

---

Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post

Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”

“Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

---

Richard Cohen — Washington Post

“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”
….

“As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.

“If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
….

Roe “is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”
….

“Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”

“Support Choice, Not Roe” Washington Post, October 19, 2005.

---

Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School

Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.”

Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.

---

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.”

“The Supreme Court 1995 Term: FOREWORD: LEAVING THINGS UNDECIDED,” 110 Harvard Law Review 6, 20 (1996).

“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”

Quoted in: Brian McGuire, “Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing,” New York Sun November 15, 2005

---

Jeffrey Rosen — Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic

“In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.
….

“Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it.”

“Worst Choice” The New Republic February 24, 2003

---

Michael Kinsley

“Against all odds (and, I’m afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court.
….

“…a freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami.”

“Bad Choice” The New Republic, June 13, 1994.

“Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway.”

“The Right’s Kind of Activism,” Washington Post, November 14, 2004.

---

Kermit Roosevelt — University of Pennsylvania Law School

“t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.

“This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited to the protection of the 14th Amendment.
….

“By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values.”

“Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’,” Washington Post, January 22, 2003.

---

Archibald Cox — JFK's Solicitor General, Harvard Law School

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution”

The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, pp. 113-114 (1976)

The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion to be constitutionally protected, and thus voided state laws banning it, was a horrible decision morally and legally. So when President Obama praises the decision on its 39th anniversary, he either shows a strikingly poor understanding of constitutional law…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Probably best to summarize articles instead of simply copying the whole thing. I think you will into fewer COPYRIGHT problems that way.