Welcome back to the Dershow, half the country seems to think that Roe vs. Wade was properly

overruled, half the country seems to think that Roe vs. Wade was corrected and shouldn't

have been overruled.

I have a different point to view.

What I'm going to argue is that the decision whether to overrule Roe vs. Wade was improperly

that the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in even deciding the issue of whether Roe vs. Wade

is constitutional or unconstitutional.

It may sound a little technical to the heart of our Constitution.

The Constitution limits the judicial power to cases and controversies.

And those of you who are conservatives out there said that for years you're against

judicial activism, you're in favor of judicial restraint, you don't want activist judges,

you don't want judges to make decisions that aren't necessary.

Well, this decision was not necessary.

The only issue, properly before the court, the issue on which surgery was granted,

review was granted, was whether Mrs. Tipi's 15-week man, that is, 15 weeks you couldn't get

an abortion in Mississippi, whether that's constitutional or unconstitutional, as she

just as Robert said, that's all the court had to decide.

Yes, after the surgery was granted, Mrs. Tipi changed its tune and engaged basically in what Chief

Justice Roberts called them a tactical or a gambit.

Oh no, we changed our mind now and now we want you to overrule Roe vs. Wade.

But it was absolutely unnecessary.

It was as if the day barrett, Justice Barrett got confirmed and they started counting noses

...