The legal decision Roe v. Wade was so nonsensical, so pulled out of thin air, so clearly a matter of agenda rather than sound jurisprudence, that even liberal judicial scholar John Hart Ely (such an abortion-rights proponent that he said, "Were I a legislator, I would vote for a statute very much like the one the [Supreme] Court ends up drafting [in Roe v. Wade]") derided the decision, flatly stating, "[Roe v. Wade] is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
These words appear in the Yale Law Review as a part of Ely's now-famous article, "The Wages of Crying Wolf." Ely basically asks the Supreme Court, "What were you thinking when you wrote this decision?" He's not alone in his opinion of the landmark 1973 court opinion.
Well, if you want a little insight into what they were thinking, you might check out Ruth Bader Ginsburg's new interview with the New York Times (HT: Baptist Press). In that article, not only did Ginsburg trample over SCOTUS protocol to come out in support of Sotomayor's nomination to the court, but she also disclosed her understanding that the Supreme Court was attempting in Roe v. Wade to keep America from being overrun with poor ethnic minorities (you know, the folks who have way too many kids).
In my opinion, it is controversial enough to hear first-hand that the Supreme Court has ANY agenda in mind other than interpreting the Constitution of the United States. On top of that, to hear that the Supreme Court is dabbling in eugenics? Well, Ginsburg's interview is as incendiary as it is revealing.