As always, you can find the Dobbs v. Jackson decision here.

Paragraph 8 of 11

Sentence 1 of 5

One kind of obnoxiously-phrased claim in this sentence:

“Resort to this argument is a testament to the lack of any real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey recognized.”

This strikes me as op-ed language, not SCOTUS language. Somebody was being cute. Anyway, here are some claims cobbled together out of that mess:

• There is no “real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey recognized.”
• The American Historical Association et al. makes this argument because there is no “real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey recognized.”

Let me know if you think I’m misrepresenting the claims in my rewording. I just wanted to remove the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I tone from them.

These claims will remain undetermined—the first because of the usual difficulty in establishing the absence of a thing and the second because it imputes motive (ironic, eh?) and that’s not something that even SCOTUS can make work. Especially when they do it while they’re arguing that imputing motive is illegitimate.

So. Two undetermined claims:

• There is no “real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey recognized.”
• The American Historical Association et al. makes this argument because there is no “real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey recognized.”