When I studied Business Law over 50 years ago, I remember something called "stare decisis." It's about precedence. “I think it’s disastrous for any liberal aspirations in terms of how the court will deal with issues of reproductive rights (or) affirmative action, going forward,” said University of Ottawa law professor and U.S. constitutional law expert Carissima Mathen.
The reason she made that statement is, there was no precedence for the decision in Roe V Wade. It was decided by making up a new meaning to the constitution by changing the meaning of the constitution from what the founders wanted to the meaning these judges wanted it to say (and probably assumed that the framers would have wanted the constitution to mean if they were alive today and experiencing the world in modern times.) The problem is they don't have the authority to move the hands of time. There judge is to interpret the constitution the way it was written and not the way they think it would be written today. That is the job of the legislative branch or the job of a constitutional amendment. Roe v wade does not have precedence and opened the door for future judges appointed by future presidents (like Trump) to do the same thing. That is the dangerous precedence set by Roe as pointed out in the following wiki article.
Justice Blackmun, who authored the Roe decision, stood by the analytical framework he established in Roe throughout his career. Despite his initial reluctance, he became the decision's chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court. Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way. Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, "it might have been much more acceptable" from a legal standpoint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for ending a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation. Ginsburg has also faulted the Court's approach for being "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered." Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."
In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt have also expressed disappointment with Roe.
Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Kinsley echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote, "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply." And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather," wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."
The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling. The "viability" criterion is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.
That means any justice selected by Trump will overturn past decisions on abortion and civil rights. Trump is a lose-lose president. He's a moron, a bigot, and a total ignoramus. His tariffs, wall, and selection of judges will affect our republic for a very long time in negative ways.
Trump just praised Putin. What more needs to be known about Trump's stupidity?
Whether Trump is a bigot, moron, or total ignoramus is irrelevant to supreme court decisions. There are not any supreme court justices with those characteristics (even when you consider whether they are pro life or pro choice).
As for tariffs, everybody wants high union wages which are not competitive with the low wages in other countries in our global economy. Plus we cannot compete with their low pollution standards in their manufacturing sector. To protect our higher wages and pollution standards and all around standard of living you must have both unions and tariffs.
And about Trump praising Putin; a wise person keeps his friends close and his enemies closer.
See this video to see how even SNL caught on to this.