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

Paragraph 2 of 3

Sentence 1 of 3

There’s one claim in the sentence opening the next paragraph:

“The dissent’s failure to engage with this long tradition is devastating to its position.”

We’ll have to see how this is supported, so it will start out undetermined, but it’s worth noting the emphasis the Dobbs Court is putting on the history-and-tradition line of reasoning. When earlier cases in the U.S. system are cited, that’s one thing. There’s a case and there’s explanation for the positions the various Courts have taken. When the Dobbs Court reaches further back it becomes something else. For one thing, there isn’t much to it—just a handful of cases over five hundred years or so—and for another thing, there isn’t any argument to it. Just assertions. There isn’t any real value to those unless we assume there are good reasons for those decisions, and that’s fallacious reasoning, appealing either to authority or tradition.

So this is undetermined:

• “The dissent’s failure to engage with this long tradition is devastating to its position.”