[StAnDeliver]

To hell with the Dissent. To hell with the Dissenters.

DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATIONBREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting "The reasons for retaining Roe and Casey gain further strength from the overwhelming reliance interests those decisions have created. The Court adheres to precedent not just for institutional reasons, but because it recognizes thatstability in the law is “an essential thread in the mantle of protection that the law affords the individual.” Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147, 154 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring). So when overruling precedent “would dislodge [individuals’] settled rights and expectations,” stare decisis has “added force.” Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm’n, 502 U. S. 197, 202 (1991). Casey understood that to deny individuals’ reliance on Roe was to “refuse to face the fact[s].” 505 U. S., at 856. Today the majority refuses to face the facts. “The most striking feature of the [majority] is the absence of any serious discussion” of how its ruling will affect women."

What was the law before Roe, ladies? Why should anyone state Roe is 'settled law'? What was the stare decisis before Roe? "That which has come before."

The issue properly belonged to the states, did it not? And is there any real argument that the 'penumbra', if it exists, is for each state to decide.

But look how quickly the Dissenters abandoned "stare decisis" -- ONE SENTENCE LATER.

"How its ruling will affect women."

Women that are already born. Women, that if they are as dumb as Sotomayor, should not be procreating, should not be attempting to procreate.

[NorthMountain]

the absence of any serious discussion” of how its ruling will affect women."

Are these three jackasses Biologists? How do they know what a woman is?

[StAnDeliver]

And another thing Dissenters, aside from your joint opinion -- and it reads like you were smoking something -- your reliance on tired Warren Court tropes that have no founding in Originalist Constitutionalism, exposes how Last Century each of you really are ... and hey thanks Sotomayor for pre-releasing Alito's opinion -- by taking the surprise out of the box, there are not be more than 200 people in front of SCOTUS -- a fraction of the J6 tourists.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!