Even a Blind Hog ...

... finds an acorn once in a while.

The once-great Chicago Tribune makes the case for following the Constitution in an editorial today -- though I suspect they stumbled across the point inadvertently.

In addressing concerns about protecting the "right" to abortion should Pres. Bush nominate some solid pro-lifers to the Supreme Court, the Trib says:

But that [reversing Roe v. Wade] would not be the end of the matter. Those who think this procedure should remain legal would be free to urge Congress and state legislatures to allow it.

The same would be true of abortion in general in the event that Roe vs. Wade is someday reversed. Before that decision, states were free to decide for themselves whether to allow abortion, and some did. All a reversal would do is restore the latitude once enjoyed by elected officials.

Well, duh, that's been the whole point. Liberals don't want to have to go to their state legislatures to preserve abortion rights. Their ideas and philosophies can't win at the ballot box or in the halls of Congress. That's why they've turned to the courts to implement their agenda.

A significant majority of the American people were against abortion. It was illegal or significantly restricted in every state in the Union when the Supreme Court "found" the right to abortion 1973. Abortion advocates had been "urging Congress and state legislatures to allow" abortion and failed. They don't want a debate on the "merits" of abortion; they don't want to have to go out now and try and convince state legislatures (and voters) to preserve abortion.

That's why liberals are so desperate to prevent solid conservatives on the Court. An activist judiciary is thier only remaining source of power. Before Roe v. Wade, "states were free to decide for themselves whether to allow abortion" and most didn't; nor are they likely to do so if given the opportunity in the future.