> "I do not want 9 unelected people deciding matters of great moment. "

OK, let's break that down. It was 9 unelected people who decided Roe v Wade, overturning laws which had been democratically passed by millions of people. Are you saying you consider that to be invalid?

How about 9 unelected people legalizing gay marriage? Overtuning anti-sodomy laws? Legalizing inter-racial marriage? Still against it those unelected people deciding matters of great moment?

Many of those ruling are based extensions to a "right to privacy" which does not exist in the Constitution, but was invented up by the Supreme Court. I think that such a right to privacy is a great idea, and I appreciate all the above extensions of that or of actual Constitutional rights. But my rational mind can still admit that they can be described as examples of "ruling from the bench" rather than "just following the law as written".

Let's be consistent. The truth is, we're fine with 9 unelected people having vast powers over the society whenever we agree with them, but find it atrocious when we do not. That is not a coherent intellectual or political philosophy.

I support abortion rights, and I live in a state which strongly supports them via the democratic process. And I too would help women come here for abortions (or pass pro-abortion laws in their own states). But I don't make a big deal about "9 unelected people", as if that was somehow illegitimate - but only when I disagree.

And you are right - there are far more women in power today than in 1973, which gives me some hope, but it's going to be a long struggle for abortion rights. It's MUCH easier if the court will impose the solution I prefer nationwide in one fell swoop, but we've lost that option for now.