Jill over at Feministe is whining about how, in the recent decision on partial-birth abortion/intact dilation and extraction, the Supreme Court Judges let their personal religious beliefs, rather than the Constitution and judicial precedent, decide the case.
This would impress me if I thought that the folks at Feministe gave a flying fig about the constitution or precedent.
But let's be honest, what is really upsetting poor Jill is that case was decided against the way she wanted it decided. If she really cared about judges letting their personal beliefs get in the way, shouldn't she consider for a moment the fact tha Roe v. Wade was decided largely not on the merits of the law but based on the fact that the judges wanted to make abortion legal? If she cared about precedent, shouldn't she also be decrying Brown v. Board of Education, which upset the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson?
Shouldn't she write about how upset she is that campaign finance reform was considered constitutional by the Supreme Court or that it validated lots of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's projects which are nowhere in the Constitution authorized?
If she thinks the decision is a bad one, fine. If she believes that this procedure should not be prohibited, fine. If she thinks that the judges would have been right to have struck down the law, fine.
But please don't pretend that you have a problem with judges making decisions based on their personal beliefs when that is how abortion got legalized (and how half of the left-winger's agenda got passed since the 1930s*) in the first place.
That is all.
*Either from the Court imposing its own views (e.g. Roe v. Wade), or from the Court validating unconstitutionl policies (e.g. Roosevelt).