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

Paragraph 2 of 8

Sentence 5 of 6

This sentence contains two claims:

“An erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously hard to amend. See Art. V; Kimble, 576 U.S., at 456.”

The claims:

• “An erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the Constitution.”
• “[O]ur Constitution is notoriously hard to amend.”

Here’s a link to the Constitution. And here’s the text of Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It is true that these are high thresholds. In the 235 years since the Constitution’s adoption, there have only been 27 amendments passed. The Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1923, and since then has satisfied all of the requirements for passage, but it’s still not official. The 27^th Amendment—the last one passed—was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992. Whether that’s because it’s hard to do or not, it certainly doesn’t happen often or quickly.

Just for fun, here’s Kimble v. Marvel:

“But Brulotte is a patent rather than an antitrust case, and our answers to both questions instead go against Kimble. To begin, even assuming that Brulotte relied on an economic misjudgment, Congress is the right entity to fix it. By contrast with the Sherman Act, the patent laws do not turn over exceptional law-shaping authority to the courts. Accordingly, statutory stare decisis—in which this Court interprets and Congress decides whether to amend—retains its usual strong force. See supra, at 8. And as we have shown, that doctrine does not ordinarily bend to ‘wrong on the merits’-type arguments; it instead assumes Congress will correct whatever mistakes we commit. See supra, at 7–8.

Strange that the second citation addresses the first claim. In this passage the Kimble Court asserts the claim that the Dobbs Court makes here. Two assertions don’t make a truth, though, so I’ll leave that undetermined.

In the end we have one undetermined claim:

• “An erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the Constitution.”

And one true claim:

• “[O]ur Constitution is notoriously hard to amend.”