Robert Gagnon, on Supreme Court precedent and Roe:
“Spare us left-wing pretense of a love affair with stare decisis (“to stand by things decided,” the authority of precedent) as regards Roe v Wade (abortion) and Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage). In less than three decades the Supreme Court went from rejecting a constitutional challenge to state sodomy laws (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986), which laws had gone unchallenged for centuries, to overturning all sodomy laws while making clear that this provides no precedent for formal affirmation of homosexual unions (Lawrence v Texas, 2003), and then to full-blown, compulsory affirmation of “gay marriage” (Obergefell v Hodges, 2015), overturning centuries of statutory and judicial precedent.
Now the mere three-year-old Obergefell ruling and the 45-year-old Roe ruling, both decided on the basis of specious, wishful-thinking appeals to the Constitution, are held by ‘progressives’ as having the force of permanent, sanctified precedent. Obviously, no one who had a hand in writing or passing the Constitution or any of its subsequent amendments believed that the Constitution safeguarded a right to kill unborn human life and a right to redefine the man-woman prerequisite for marriage. Left-wing judicial philosophy respects only those precedents that agree with left-wing social ideology and is fantastically creative in seeing things in the Constitution that not only were not seen for centuries but also the very thought of which was repelling. Therefore, no respect can be accorded their appeal to stare decisis as regards Roe and Obergefell. It is but pretense glazed over with hypocrisy.”