Where does the US constitution specifically mention abortion?

>Why do non-elected dictators for life get to essentially write their own "interpretation" of the constitution based on their own whim?
Article 3, section 1. Judicial power is invested, not created; thus the Supreme Court has the powers assigned to judicial functions of England, whose laws were inherited and largely worked off of, which includes things like judicial review.

>>2744821

Because that's what the Common Law is, you tard, the collected rulings of those with the right to make such rulings, ie, judges.

>>2744821

>Where does the US constitution specifically mention abortion?

The claim is that it is covered by the 4th Amendment because of privacy. This interpretation of the 4th Amendment is controversial to say the least.

>>2744821
The Constitution specifically says people have rights not written in the Constitution.

>>2744854

So it's like a mystery box?

>>2744821
Marbury vs. Madison ( also >>2744838 )

Someone has to interpret the Constitution, and SCOTUS is the least politically pressured branch we have to do so.

Maybe the next time we make a Constitution it'll be an open-source AI that can actually interpret its own laws and make its own decisions as to how they apply to future situations. Until then, we've gotta rely on flawed, invariably biased humans to do so.

>>2744859
it recognizes natural rights that will apply to a variety of unforeseeable/comolex situations and doesnt autistically say if it wasnt explicitly written in this one document it can't be a right

File: IMG_7529.jpg (206KB, 871x1222px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 871x1222px

>>2744966
Tldr: you can make whatever laws you feel like if you're the Supreme Court, and claim they are "your interpretation"

>>2744984
Until you get a legislative veto a la what happened with the ADA in the early 90s. What part of "Common law system" do you not get? Congress can also make up whatever laws they feel like until another body overrides them.

>>2744984
Good luck convincing a majority of the judges to accept "your interpretation" if you can't make a reasonable argument that it's a basic human right