Monthly Archives: January 2024
Dobbs Sentences #201: Part III
Paragraph 1 of 8 Sentence 1 of 8 The first section of Part III isn’t indicated by a letter, and I’m guessing it serves as an introduction. The topic of Part III is stare decisis, which addresses the concerns of Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the dissenters more directly than Part II’s history and tradition […]
Dobbs History and Tradition #1
I found a number of interesting claims in a Washington Post article written in May of 2022 by Gillian Brockell. She addresses some of the historical material the Dobbs majority discusses in the decision. About Matthew Hale: “At least seven times, Alito cited Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who didn’t think marital rape was […]
Reflections on Dobbs Part II
Part II is about history and tradition, which are both valuable if the history reveals good reasons for their preservation of tradition. On the other hand, if an idea appears in history without explanation, it’s just trivia. There’s a lot to dig into considering that out of 200 hundred sentences, most of which broke down […]
Dobbs Sentences #200: The End of Part II D 3
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 4 of 4 To close out Part II we get a sentence with a single claim: “Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘“theory of life.”’ Post, at 8.” And here’s the cited passage in the dissent: “Some half-century ago, Roe […]
Dobbs Sentences #199: Part II D 3
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 3 of 4 Two claims in this sentence: “According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed.” The claims: The first claim, again, requires a more thorough […]
Dobbs Sentences #198: Part II D 3
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 2 of 4 Two claims in this sentence: “The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin.” The claims: Both of these will rely on a complete reading of the dissent, so they will have to remain undetermined:
Dobbs Sentences #197: Part II D 3
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 1 of 4 One claim in this sentence, and it’s a doozy: “Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth.” This could be true depending on the reading of “is not based on,” but […]
Dobbs Sentences #196: Part II D 3
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 8 of 8 This sentence contains just one claim: “Nor does it identify any other point in a pregnancy after which a State is permitted to prohibit the destruction of a fetus.” I’ll reword that so it can stand alone: I think the “it” of this sentence means to indicate […]
Dobbs Sentences #195: Part II D 3
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 7 of 8 This sentence contains two claims: “It was not adequately justified in Roe, and the dissent does not even try to defend it today.” The claims: Both of these claims assert negatives, and both would require thorough readings of the respective sources, so they have to remain undetermined […]
Dobbs Sentences #194: Part II D 3
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 6 of 8 Three claims here: “But for reasons we discuss later, see infra, at 50–54, 55–56, and given in the opinion of The Chief Justice, post, at 2–5 (opinion concurring in judgment), the viability line makes no sense.” These claims make more sense taken last to first: This seems […]
Cynical Jason 