From: "Gary Britt" 

Until the Supreme made that decision there was no binding Supreme Court
precedent on the specific issue of that case.  Therefore, Judge Alito
argued in favor of upholding the constitution, the majority on his court
and on the Supremes voted to continue the unconstitutional practice of
adding words, paragraphs, and pages to the constitution without the people
to be governed thereby having agreed to such changes via their votes and
elected representatives.

The constitution doesn't say that a married women doesn't have to discuss
or at least mention that she is going to kill hers and her husband's baby
to her husband.  Those words, the word baby, and the word abortion do NOT
appear in the constitution.

Four Supreme Court Justices wanted to return to the rule of law or in this
case the rule of the constitution, but five wanted to continue the
unconstitutional practice of adding words, phrases, and entire pages to the
constitution by judicial fiat rather than by constitutional amendment.

There is a process for adding words, phrases, rights, and pages to the
constitution and none of them begin with "First 5 out of 9 Judges make
a decree and then everyone bows down and worships at the alter of the black
robed mighty ones".  "For who is like these black robed priests
and who can know them".

Gary

(Quotes above are from the "Book of the Almighty
Secular/Atheists"  "Or How To Steal A Country Without Really
Trying")


"Gregg N"  wrote in message
news:4367a534{at}w3.nls.net...
> I don't agree. If the constitution says you have right x, a law cannot be
> passed that says, okay you have right x but only if you also do y. In this
> case, the original law allowed for y provided it was not an undue burden.
> Alito thought it was not, the Supreme Court disagreed.
>
> Gregg
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4366b677{at}w3.nls.net...
> > He didn't he decided the case on the basis that there is no provision in
> > the
> > constitution that addresses this policy matter and therefore it is NOT
for
> > courts and judges to decide but for elected legislatures to decide.
> >
> > Any other decision would be activist, and also not supported by the text
> > of
> > the constitution.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Gregg N"  wrote in message
> > news:43669e3a{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
> >> news:v27dm1pc6d4fmhb5i6vu3jgfk3mjnocms4{at}4ax.com...
> >> > Re the case about a married woman's husband being
notified prior to
an
> >> > abortion being performed, isn't the baby as much his as
hers?  So why
> >> > shouldn't he at least be informed?   Granted, I suppose this
reasoning
> >> > wouldn't apply in the case of a woman aborting a child
whose father
is
> >> > not the husband but as a society do we really want to
support that?
> >> >
> >>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5