Yesterday, our highest court voted in a 5-4 majority that partial-birth abortions, a procedure that involves partially removing the fetus intact from a women's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion, are unconstitutional. Quickly, future presidential contenders on both sides voiced their opinions. Every Republican candidate rejoiced that this restriction on abortion had passed. Every Democratic candidate thought it was a horrible day for women's rights. Ok, but I don't really care what you think about the moral implications of what the decision means? I only care if you think that the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Constitution. If you think they acted within their means, even though you disagree with the moral sentiment of the outcome, shouldn't you be content with the Court's ruling? Similarly, if you think that the Court ignored countless precedents and interpreted the law incorrectly, shouldn't that be your argument? Not just, "I believe in women's rights" or "I believe in the rights of every unborn child".

Doesn't the democratic victory of Hamas in Palestine show us that a majority rule democracy does not work? Especially in a democracy where the different parties seek to create different theocratic states where certain classes are defined as the righteous, and the others, the subservient. Or do we get around this problem by creating constitutional laws that ensure certain freedoms, rights and liberties to all citizens, and only let the majority ruling party tinker with certain economic and social practices?