Monthly Archives: January 2024
Dobbs Sentences #183: Part II D 2
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 4 of 4 This sentence contains at least three claims: “There are occasions when past decisions should be overruled, and as we will explain, this is one of them.” The claims: I’m positive that the first claim can’t be quickly confirmed, and the other two look to be expanded on […]
Dobbs Sentences #182: Part II D 2
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 3 of 4 This sentence is one claim: “But as the Court has reiterated time and time again, adherence to precedent is not ‘“an inexorable command.”’ Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 455 (2015).” I’ll rephrase the claim to make it less awkward standing alone: This paragraph appears […]
Dobbs Sentences #181: Part II D 2
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 2 of 4 This sentence contains two claims: “Under the doctrine of stare decisis, those precedents are entitled to careful and respectful consideration, and we engage in that analysis below.” The claims: The first claim is just a description of stare decisis as this Court understands it (and what is […]
Dobbs Sentences #180: Part II D 2
Paragraph 3 of 3 Sentence 1 of 3 Lots of claims in this sentence: “So without support in history or relevant precedent, Roe’s reasoning cannot be defended even under the dissent’s proposed test, and the dissent is forced to rely solely on the fact that a constitutional right to abortion was recognized in Roe and […]
Dobbs Sentences #179: Part II D 2
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 3 of 3 This entire sentence is one claim, but it’s built out of a couple of other claims: “Second, it is impossible to defend Roe based on prior precedent because all of the precedents Roe cited, including Griswold and Eisenstadt, were critically different for a reason that we have […]
Cynical Jason 