Tag Archives: Dobbs v Jackson
Dobbs Sentences #138: Part II C 1
Paragraph 4 of 6 Sentence 1 of 6 The next paragraph starts with a definition: “Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests.” This is the Dobbs Court’s definition of “ordered liberty,” and they don’t cite support, so either it’s the (a?) generally accepted definition or it’s a controversial description that will […]
Dobbs Sentences #137: Part II C 1
Paragraph 3 of 6 Sentence 3 of 3 The paragraph ends with two claims: “License to act on the basis of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of ‘liberty,’ but it is certainly not ‘ordered liberty’.” The claims: The first claim is true in the sense that it’s just a basic […]
Dobbs Sentences #136: Part II C 1
Paragraph 3 of 6 Sentence 2 of 3 This seems like a less significant sentence, but it contains two consequential claims: “While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about ‘existence,’ ‘meaning,’ the ‘universe,’ and ‘the mystery of human life,’ they are not always free to act in accordance with […]
Dobbs Sentences #135: Part II C 1
Paragraph 3 of 6 Sentence 1 of 3 The next paragraph starts with a sentence containing two claims: “The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is absolute, and no such claim would be plausible.” The claims: As for the first claim: not only did the Roe and Casey Courts not claim that […]
Dobbs Sentences #134: Part II C 1
Paragraph 2 of 6 Sentence 3 of 3 This sentence is one simple claim: “Casey elaborated: ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ Ibid.” For the list: And here is the passage in Casey, which […]
Dobbs Sentences #133: Part II C 1
Paragraph 2 of 6 Sentence 2 of 3 The second sentence in this section makes two claims based on the previous sentence: “Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U.S., at 154, and Casey described it as the freedom to make ‘intimate and personal choices’ that are ‘central to personal dignity and autonomy,’ 505 […]
Dobbs Sentences #132: Part II C 1 (The Return)
Paragraph 1 of 6 Sentence 2 of 2 The first sentence of Part II C 1 contains two claims: “Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right.” Here are the […]
Dobbs Sentences #131: Part II B 3
Paragraph 11 of 11 Sentence 2 of 2 The final sentence in Part II B 3 has just one claim: “And we see no reason to discount the significance of the state laws in question based on these amici’s suggestions about legislative motive.41” This claim is subjective, and not really eligible for verification or falsification: […]
Dobbs Sentences #130: Part II B 3
Paragraph 11 of 11 Sentence 1 of 2 The next sentence has three claims: “One may disagree with this belief (and our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests), but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith […]
Dobbs Sentences #129: Part II B 3
Paragraph 10 of 11 Sentence 2 of 2 On claim and a fistful of sources with this sentence: “Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point. See, e.g., Nash v. Meyer, 54 Idaho 283, 301, 31 P. 2d 273, 280 (1934); State v. Ausplund, 86 Ore. 121, 131–132, 167 […]
Cynical Jason 