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

Paragraph 1 of 3

Sentence 2 of 2

At least five claims are packed into this sentence:

“This vague formulation imposes no clear restraints on what Justice White called the ‘exercise of raw judicial power,’ Roe, 410 U.S., at 222 (dissenting opinion), and while the dissent claims that its standard ‘does not mean anything goes,’ post, at 17, any real restraints are hard to discern.”

The claims:

• The ideas expressed in the previous sentence are a “vague formulation.”
• “This vague formulation imposes no clear restraints on what Justice White called the ‘exercise of raw judicial power,’”
• “[W]hile the dissent claims that its standard ‘does not mean anything goes,’ post, at 17, any real restraints are hard to discern.”
• “[T]he dissent claims that its standard ‘does not mean anything goes,’”
• “[A]ny real restraints are hard to discern.”

The first claim is a judgment, and not worth analyzing right now. The second claim is beyond my knowledge to analyze at all. I’ll have to look to other sources to help me with that. Same with the third and the fifth claims.

The fourth claim, though, is easily checked. Here’s the dissent at page 17, which I already cited for the previous sentence:

“That does not mean anything goes.”

See? They wrote those words. This claim is true:

• “[T]he dissent claims that its standard ‘does not mean anything goes,’”

I’ll need time and help with the other four, though. They are undetermined:

• The ideas expressed in the previous sentence are a “vague formulation.”
• “This vague formulation imposes no clear restraints on what Justice White called the ‘exercise of raw judicial power,’”
• “[W]hile the dissent claims that its standard ‘does not mean anything goes,’ post, at 17, any real restraints are hard to discern.”
• “[A]ny real restraints are hard to discern.”