Tag Archives: Roe v Wade
Dobbs Sentences #242: Part III A
Paragraph 4 of 5 Sentence 7 of 7 This sentence is just one claim: “Together, Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand.” Just one claim, but the claim that expresses the whole point of this decision. Obviously, since so much of what I’ve looked at so far is undetermined, this […]
Dobbs Sentences #241: Part III A
Paragraph 4 of 5 Sentence 6 of 7 This (borrowed) sentence has two claims: “’Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since.’ Casey, 505 U.S., at 995–996 (opinion of Scalia, J.).” The […]
Dobbs Sentences #237: Part III A
Paragraph 4 of 5 Sentence 2 of 7 This sentence looks like it has four claims: “Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” Roe, 410 U.S., at 222 (White, J., dissenting), the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.” The […]
Dobbs Sentences #236: Part III A
Paragraph 4 of 5 Sentence 1 of 7 This sentence is a series of three claims: “Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, Casey perpetuated its errors, and those errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people.” The […]
Dobbs Sentences #235: Part III A
Paragraph 3 of 5 Sentence 2 of 2 There are two claims in this sentence, and a lot going on in how those claims are being expressed: “For reasons already explained, Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.” The claims: […]
Dobbs Sentences #234: Part III A
Paragraph 3 of 5 Sentence 1 of 2 This sentence has two claims: “Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging.” The claims: I suppose you could make the case that the Court means the “also” to apply in parallel, but since the previous paragraph didn’t assert anything about deep damage, I’m not going to […]
Dobbs Sentences #201: Part III
Paragraph 1 of 8 Sentence 1 of 8 The first section of Part III isn’t indicated by a letter, and I’m guessing it serves as an introduction. The topic of Part III is stare decisis, which addresses the concerns of Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the dissenters more directly than Part II’s history and tradition […]
Dobbs Sentences #195: Part II D 3
Paragraph 2 of 3 Sentence 7 of 8 This sentence contains two claims: “It was not adequately justified in Roe, and the dissent does not even try to defend it today.” The claims: Both of these claims assert negatives, and both would require thorough readings of the respective sources, so they have to remain undetermined […]
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 #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 […]
Cynical Jason 