Question

Ill give brainiest if u answer correctly

Answer 1

Answer: I’m honestly not surprised because it definitely seems like a very one sided decision. The United States Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to correct the error of their ruling in Roe. Instead, the Court arrogantly chose to maintain their position in an all too common case of “repeat judicial activism.” In the courtroom, decisions are too often guided – not by legislation – but rather by so-called “case-law,” i.e., past court decisions, or precedent. This adherence to “precedent” is said to provide consistency and uniformity among the numerous courts of the United States. However, blind adherence to bad precedents results in the “consistent and uniform” multiplication of bad results.

Explanation: