Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, leaves issue up to states

[Valin]

Mostly Peaceful In Seattle

 

 

[Valin]

14 minutes ago, Geee said:

What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it's citizens who will decide. - Jonathan Turley

 

But..But What if they Decide Wrong?

[Valin]

18 minutes ago, Geee said:

What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it's citizens who will decide. - Jonathan Turley

Chief justice stood alone

 

In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts cut a bit of a lonely figure in the mix of the court on the issue. His concurrence did not seriously question the majority view that Roe was not based on a good law. However, he would have stopped short of overturning the decision outright. It is the ultimate call of an incrementalist detached from the underlying constitutional interpretation.

The court now has a solid majority of justices who are more motivated by what they view as "first principles" than pragmatic concerns. From a court that has long used nuanced (and maddeningly vague) opinions to avoid major changes in constitutional doctrine, we now have clarity on this issue. It will return to the citizens of each state to decide.

 

 

Ben gives a ten minute opinion in eight minutes twenty seconds.

[Valin]

 

[Geee]

Supreme Court ruling's dissenters made no serious attempt to support legal basis for Roe

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote a joint dissent that, like the precedents they argued should be upheld, reads like a raw appeal for legislation. This includes the hyperbolic claim that now "a woman has no rights to speak of" from the moment of fertilization on, as if the only right that matters were a judicially imposed ability to abort.

 

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer holds up a copy of the U.S. Constitution as he announces he will retire at the end of the court's current term, at the White House, Jan. 27, 2022. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

For that matter, the dissenters do not make a serious effort to dispute the points the majority makes about the legal basis for Roe in the first instance. Their argument amounts to an appeal to uphold the court’s protracted acts of judicial fiat on the subject of abortion because they like the outcome of those precedents as a matter of policy. Such brazen melding of policy preferences with constitutional interpretation undermines the rule of law.

 

[Valin]