Tag Archives: Dobbs v Jackson
Dobbs Sentences #188: Part II D 3
Paragraph 1 of 3 Sentence 5 of 5 This sentence appears to have two claims: “So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a ‘potential life’ […]
Dobbs Sentences #187: Part II D 3
Paragraph 1 of 3 Sentence 4 of 5 This sentence contains two claims: “The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a ‘potential life,’ but an abortion has that effect.” These are true. Abortion is abortion and things that aren’t abortion aren’t abortion. The majority’s reluctance to […]
Dobbs Sentences #186: Part II D 3
Paragraph 1 of 3 Sentence 3 of 5 This is one of the more notorious sentences in this decision: “Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the […]
Dobbs Sentences #185: Part II D 3
Paragraph 1 of 3 Sentence 2 of 5 This sentence is a single claim: “This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage).” Here’s the claim with the […]
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 […]
Cynical Jason 