On the recordNovember 12, 2003
You would think from the debate here that this right to privacy, that has now been established as this incredibly well thought out and documented thing, is wholly supported within this document. I have folks on my side of the aisle--I always think of the former Senator from Washington, Slade Gorton, who is for abortion rights who thought Roe v. Wade was one of the worst legal decisions he had ever seen. So many people who are for abortion rights, who would have voted as a legislator to allow the legalization of abortion, saw this judicial construction or deconstruction of the Constitution as an abomination to our legal system. Has that ever happened before? Obviously, the Senator from Kansas is referring to some of the cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson where the Court looked at this Constitution and said: You know, equality really doesn't mean equality. The words here aren't exactly what we think they are, and you can be separate and equal. Or we can go back to Dred Scott. They looked at this Constitution and said: You know, equal doesn't mean equal. This rash of cases we have seen where the courts have just decided to take these hallowed words and twist them into the culture of the day, this is not a new thing in America; unfortunately, it is a very old thing in America. The Court in Dred Scott said: Yes, people have rights and people should be treated equally, but--I think of ``Animal Farm''--some people are more equal than others. Some people have more rights than others.
Source
govinfo.gov




