Posted on 06/25/2022 8:57:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Friday’s momentous Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade has leftist politicians screaming, news anchors sputtering, and Twitter on fire, with both sides of the debate weighing in. All these loud voices, yet few of them seem to have read the opinion.
What does it actually say?
The final opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and is mostly similar to the draft that was leaked in May. The opinion ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Arguably the most important line in the ruling comes on the first page of 213-page pdf document (emphasis mine):
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Boom. Authority is returned to the people and their representatives. Where it should have been all along.
On page 4, in one of his most powerful paragraphs, Alito dunked on the 1973 court for “usurping power”:
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. Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,”… the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.
Even “longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights,” the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed in 2013 that the Roe was flawed:
She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts… Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
The problem with Roe all along is that it distorted the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy and expanded it to include abortion. Alito says:
In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been ‘reluctant’ to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
Alito goes on to discuss the theory of life, soundly rebuking the dissenting opinion signed by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.”
He’s rejecting the dissenters’ view that the Constitution regards a fetus as lacking even the most basic right. While he doesn’t specifically say that fetuses have rights, he’s certainly not willing to claim they don’t.
Many on the left, including the dissenting justices, are freaking out that Clarence Thomas, in a non-binding concurring opinion, wrote that the decision calls into question old cases like gay marriage and access to birth control.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, fomented fears about what other rights could disappear: The same rationale, he said, should also be used to overturn rights to contraception and same-sex marriage.
https://t.co/tMsDFDqmAI— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 24, 2022
Alito’s opinion shut the door on revisiting old cases, though, flatly stating that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
It’s a powerful opinion, one which is greatly overdue, rights a legal wrong, and hands back power to the states—where it should be. Thank you, Justice Alito.
So, Alito isn't shutting down the avenues for the other rulings then, right?
“There’s nothing in the Constitution about homo marriage, or regular marriage for that matter.”
In a nation where all are to be treated equally under the law, the government shouldn’t be sanctioning any marriage.
“Actually if you’re states rights you agree...and win.”
True - This was mostly about states rights rather than abortion.
The number of abortions won’t change much.
“Imagine if we had gotten Harriet Miers instead of Sam Alito? God knows what He’s doing.”
I’ve been thinking the same over the past two years. Sam Alito is a national hero, a great patriot who delivered a majority opinion for the ages — striking a blow for the rule of law, for the Constitution of the United States as it’s written. And, to think, we almost got a hack like Harriet Miers instead. Thank God for the likes of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham who screamed bloody murder and derailed the Miers nomination. They changed the course of American history... and ultimately saved lives.
You have to wonder if the abortion crowd hadn’t pushed the issue to the point where a baby could be killed up to the time of birth, then the American people might have passively accepted the status quo.
We prayed for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Now it's time to pray for the repentance and restoration of California.
I hope not.
The riots, demonstrations, grand standing are all political motivation.
>>Many on the left, including the dissenting justices, are freaking out that Clarence Thomas, in a non-binding concurring opinion, wrote that the decision calls into question old cases like gay marriage and access to birth control.
So, IIRC, did Breyer in his dissent.
IMO Thomas was correct in stating that any law made up out of thin air should be struck down. I also think that he mentioned those three particular cases just to tweak the leftists a bit.
Clarence Thomas presents as the Justice most cognixant of the real scope of the US Constitution, even though his concurring opinion is not binding on the Court or the Nation.
Disagree. We are no worse off than we were before, and 20+ states have now banned abortion altogether. That is certainly a victory.
Would I have preferred the court recognize the rights of the unborn? Sure. But to do so, probably would be judicial activism. The very thing that brought us to Roe vs Wade in the beginning. It would be better for legislatures to recognize those rights.
And this landmark ruling will help SCOTUS avoid judicial activism in the future.
What if the Turtle had folded and we got Merrett Garland?? Judges is the only thing he has done right!!!
A coffee toast to you!
“What if the Turtle had folded and we got Merrett Garland??”
IMO, in the Roe case Garland is more dangerous as AG than he would’ve been in SCOTUS. At least in SCOTUS there are others to (hopefully) balance / thwart his evil. If he had been on SCOTUS and voted with the three, it still would’ve been a win for us.
As AG, he has total power to persecute law-abiding citizens and lock them in gulags without due process, set free hardened criminals, etc.
Of course, the long-term harm he potentially could do on SCOTUS over his lifetime is a problem.
Agree.
The people who do not like this ruling are upset because it does not outlaw abortion, it makes it harder to get one and it returns the feeling of guilt that society once imposed on those who do.
This is how the country is supposed to work. Congress writes the laws, not the Courts.
Unfortunately, our seditious public education system doesn’t teach those things.
Levin said there was nothing anyone could do, and I said that wasn't true. I said we could get prominent voices to appeal to Miers to withdraw her name from consideration.
That is eventually what happened.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.