Tag Archives: Claims
Dobbs Sentences #184: Part II D 3
Paragraph 1 of 3 Sentence 1 of 5 This sentence has one claim with a few questionable phrases. “The most striking feature of the dissent is the absence of any serious discussion of the legitimacy of the States’ interest in protecting fetal life.” I’m hesitant about “most striking feature” and “any serious discussion.” I guess […]
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 […]
Dobbs Sentences #178: Part II D 2
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 2 of 2 This sentence contains two claims: “First, if the ‘long sweep of history’ imposes any restraint on the recognition of unenumerated rights, then Roe was surely wrong, since abortion was never allowed (except to save the life of the mother) in a majority of States for over 100 […]
Dobbs Sentences #177: Part II D 2
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 1 of 2 I count two claims here: “The largely limitless reach of the dissenters’ standard is illustrated by the way they apply it here.” The claims: These need to be supported, so until I see that support these are undetermined:
Dobbs Sentences #176: Part II D 2
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,’ […]
Dobbs Sentences #175: Part II D 2
Paragraph 1 of 3 Sentence 1 of 2 This sentence has three claims—one of which being the whole sentence: “Because the dissent cannot argue that the abortion right is rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, it contends that the ‘constitutional tradition’ is ‘not captured whole at a single moment,’ and that its ‘meaning gains […]
Cynical Jason 