Dobbs finally arrived:
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
He was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Roberts filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” wrote Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in a joint dissent.
The issue of abortion will now be returned to the individual states to regulate as each sees fit. Dark blue states are expected to impose the most radical pro-abortion policies while dark red states may ban all abortion. Many states may choose to allow abortion only under certain circumstances.
A few thoughts:
- I am Catholic. We walk by faith and reason. Both faith and reason point to why Catholics have always opposed abortion. In that sense, today is a great day.
- Now the battle really begins, and I do not mean the inevitable attacks and violence that will unfold over the coming days. The real battle is to win hearts and minds where possible. As long as Roe existed, all potential discussions about the morality and efficacy of abortion laws were always more theoretical than real, because 7 dudes said so. Now, for good and bad, the people and their elected representatives get to decide the matter.
- The Court’s decision is, at bottom, an admission of humility. Roe was always an exercise in raw judicial power, as Byron White said in his dissent nearly 50 years ago. And as is often the case, the best use of power is sometimes to refrain from wielding such power.
- Between this decision and the court’s earlier decision this week in the Bruen case, the court has at least started a necessary process of returning to first principles. And if the Court were to continue this process, I’d certainly like them to look at earlier abusive rulings. I’d start with Wickard v. Filburn.
And to make things perfectly clear, Emery, my view is that the conservative jurists on the court are all ethical, and the Senators who are accusing them of perjuring themselves either do not understand the process, or they’re lying themselves.
When I complain about Hillary’s emails or the stolen election, I’m told:
“Stop dwelling in the past. Time to move on.”
Hey Liberals, about these recent court decisions . . . .
The “settled law” complaint puts me in mind of an episode of “Touched by an Angel” in which a little town is dying from drought and one guy decides to sue God for breach of promise. Monica gets called as a witness. The guy insists God hasn’t answered their prayers for rain and that proves he’s broken his promise to His people. Monica responds: “God has heard your prayers and He has answered them. The answer is no.”
Similarly, the idea gays had no constitutional right to marry was settled law for 200 years until it wasn’t. The several states’ power to regulate abortion was settled law for nearly as long, until it wasn’t.
Roe v. Wade was settled law but it was settled wrongly. Now we’ve put it right again. What’s the problem?
Also, glad to see Hindrocket at Powerline picking up Justice Thomas saying what I’ve been saying for decades – the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is the reasoning behind Dred Scott. Glad to see he’s stepped up his game to my level.
Emery, the same poor, befuddled Senators who are so shocked, shocked that conservative Justices would find limits to stare decisis simply look the other way when liberal justices like Sonia Sotomayor say things like this:
All decisions of the Supreme Court I consider “settled law” to the extent that the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for precedent) applies.
So the poor Senators simply didn’t understand what “settled law” means; that a decision is entitled to respect until it’s found Constitutionally absurd. What a pity; apparently there are no “lawyers” in the Senate, or any Senators who’ve been in DC long enough to learn what this phrase means.
Oh, most of them are lawyers? I guess they ought to ask for their tuition money back, then.