Quote:

As for Judicial Interpretation, that's been the prerogative of the Third Branch of Government since Marbury v. Madison in 1801, and I don't see any reason to change it now.



Striking down state laws on the basis of conflict with the higher law of the US constitution is perfectly reasonable. Interpreting the constitution within sensible bounds to apply to modern situations is also reasonable and necessary. Roe vs Wade, on the other hand, was a construct on a construct on an inference from the constitution, ie just a ridiculous act of legislating from the bench. The dissenting justices nailed it:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

Whether you agree with abortion or not, is this how you want the law made? If you do agree with it, how will you feel when the Supreme Court invents a right that you don't agree with, and you have no way to hold the life-appointees accountable? The idea of appointing strict constructionists is that they rule on the law as written, whether they agree with it or not, and leave the leglislating where it belongs, with the legislators. And that's where your vote can, at least in theory, make a difference.
_________________________
"If I were a guy, not swallowing would be a deal breaker. So what if you cook and clean? I can get a maid for that." - Gia Jordan