The Supreme Court's most liberal justices come out against Roe v. Wade!
It's true! In a recently announced decision regarding the enormous lawsuits that have been brought against Exxon, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissented from the majority, decrying "lawmaking" from the Supreme Court bench.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens supported the $2.5 billion figure for punitive damages, saying Congress has chosen not to impose restrictions in such circumstances.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented, saying the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses.
"The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress," wrote Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar point, opposing a rigid 1 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.
No doubt this new found disdain for making laws by judicial fiat will lead to a consistent refutation of the ultimate example of making laws from the bench instead of interpreting laws. Since Roe v. Wade is the ultimate example of judicial legislating, I would expect them to reverse their prior stance on abortion.
I commend Justices Stevens and Ginsburg for their upcoming courageous stance to overturn Roe v. Wade.