Tag Archives: Claims
Dobbs Sentences #124: Part II B 3
Paragraph 8 of 11 Sentence 4 and 5 of 5 I’m actually doing two sentences at a time here, because the Dobbs authors have broken what should be one sentence with an integrated quote into two separate sentences. Neither does anything on its own, though, so here they are together: “Even when an argument about […]
Dobbs Sentences #123: Part II B 3
Paragraph 8 of 11 Sentence 3 of 5 Just one claim in this sentence: “The Court has recognized that inquiries into legislative motives ‘are a hazardous matter.’ O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 383.” That is definitely a thing that was written in O’Brien. Here’s the passage in O’Brien: “Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are […]
Dobbs Sentences #122: Part II B 3
Paragraph 8 of 11 Sentence 2 of 5 More citation than claim in this sentence: “This Court has long disfavored arguments based on alleged legislative motives. See, e.g., Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 529 U. S. 277, 292 (2000) (plurality opinion); Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 652 (1994); United States […]
Dobbs Sentences #121: Part II B 3
Paragraph 8 of 11 Sentence 1 of 5 One kind of obnoxiously-phrased claim in this sentence: “Resort to this argument is a testament to the lack of any real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey recognized.” This strikes me as op-ed language, not SCOTUS language. Somebody was being cute. Anyway, here are […]
Dobbs Sentences #120: Part II B 3
Paragraph 7 of 11 Sentence 2 of 2 This sentence makes it easier to do the work of the last sentence*. I’ll have to remember that when I come back through. I guess that’s a hazard of working a sentence at a time. “According to this account, which is based almost entirely on statements made […]
Dobbs Sentences #119: Part II B 3
Paragraph 7 of 11 Sentence 1 of 2 This is another sentence with two variations of one claim: “Another amicus brief relied upon by respondents (see Brief for Respondents 21) tries to dismiss the significance of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by suggesting that they were […]
Dobbs Sentences #118: Part II B 3
Paragraph 6 of 11 Sentence 4 of 4 This sentence has two claims that need some discussion: “That is not surprising since common-law authorities had repeatedly condemned abortion and described it as an ‘unlawful’ act without regard to whether it occurred before or after quickening. See supra, at 16–21.” The claims: The phrase that separates […]
Dobbs Sentences #117: Part II B 3
Paragraph 6 of 11 Sentence 3 of 4 This sentence contains two claims that are closely related but different in an important way: “When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.” The claims: […]
Dobbs Sentences #116: Part II B 3
Paragraph 6 of 11 Sentence 2 of 4 This sentence contains three claims: “But the insistence on quickening was not universal, see Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa., at 633; State v. Slagle, 83 N.C. 630, 632 (1880), and regardless, the fact that many States in the late 18th and early 19th century did not criminalize […]
Dobbs Sentences #115: Part II B 3
Paragraph 6 of 11 Sentence 1 of 4 I see three claims in the next sentence: “The Solicitor General next suggests that history supports an abortion right because the common law’s failure to criminalize abortion before quickening means that ‘at the Founding and for decades thereafter, women generally could terminate a pregnancy, at least in […]
Cynical Jason 