Ivor, The Court ruled, 7 to 2, that Abortion is a Constitutional right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. The Court has the power to make such a ruling as per Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) LINK. In more than 200 years, the Legislative and Executive Branches have not availed themselves of their checks and balances over the Judiciary in this regard. Nor has anyone attempted to amend the Constitution to preclude Judicial Review, either in the Congress or by calling for a Constitutional Convention as provided for in Article V of the Constitution.

Roe is a Constitutionally valid decision, and, in my opinion, the right decision. If you oppose abortion, or the doctrine of Judicial Review, then you should vote for right wing candidates who would do away with both. That's how you can make your vote count.

Oh wait, that's right, you don't have a vote here, do you? Still, I'm impressed. I was not aware they taught American Constitutional Law in London. Were you a classmate of Terry Randall? Or Antonin Scalia?

EDIT: You may not be aware of this, Ivor, but the term "Strict Constructionist" doesn't mean what it says on it's face. It's a kind of code, like "Genteel Society," "A certain class of people," "a good school" "Restricted Club," etc. It's a term that's bandied about by Right Wing organizations like The Federalist Society to refer to judges that adhere to a certain ideology. They are no less activist in their rulings than Judges on the Left. Maybe more so, since they are attempting to undo all the progressive advances made by the Warren Court, and, to a lesser extent, the Burger Court. Like any other politician of either party, Judges use restraint when it serves their purposes and wax expansive when that course advances their agenda. It's all a game of whores, Ivor. The question is: which one do you want to get fucked by?