Monthly Archives: June 2023
Course Correction #1
Those last two posts are terrible. If they were meant to be the presentations of findings in the investigation they fail, but they’re not that. They’re just my notes kept in a public place so I can keep track of where I’m going and people can (theoretically, so far) call me out on mistakes. Jumbled […]
Dobbs: Ordered Liberty #1
So far I’ve looked at all of the sentences in Part II section A 1 & 2 and quickly assessed whether the claims in those sentences can be determined true. I came up with many true claims and even more undetermined claims (with one of those likely false). One of the factors preventing me from […]
Dobbs Sentences #43: Part II A 2
Paragraph 9 of 9 Sentence 4 of 4 The final sentence of Part II Section A is a declaration: “When we engage in that inquiry in the present case, the clear answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to an abortion.” I have to admit that on this pass through this […]
Dobbs Sentences #42: Part II A 2
Paragraph 9 of 9 Sentence 3 of 4 The next sentence contains four claims, the first of which is the whole sentence: “Instead, guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of our Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, we must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term ‘liberty.’” Here they […]
Dobbs Sentences #41: Part II A 2
Paragraph 9 of 9 Sentence 2 of 4 The next sentence is single assertion—a judgment rather than a supportable claim—and there’s a little humor in the subtext: “The Court must not fall prey to such an unprincipled approach.” This refers to the previous sentence and the idea that Lochner v. New York and other decisions […]
Dobbs Sentences #40: Part II A 2
Paragraph 9 of 9 Sentence 1 of 4 The next paragraph starts with a sentence containing four claims: “On occasion, when the Court has ignored the ‘[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘“respect for the teachings of history,”’ Moore, 431 U. S., at 503 (plurality opinion), it has fallen into the freewheeling judicial policymaking that characterized discredited […]
Dobbs Sentences #39: Part II A 2
Paragraph 8 of 9 Sentence 4 of 4 The last sentence of this paragraph is basically a single claim, but there is a second suggestion that is a sort of claim: “As the Court cautioned in Glucksberg, ‘[w]e must . . . exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in […]
Dobbs Sentences #38: Part II A 2
Paragraph 8 of 9 Sentence 3 of 4 The next sentence is a strange one, and it contains two claims: “’Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,’ Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority […]
Cynical Jason 