The Dobbs Decision Unleashes Rage and Revisionism

In the aftermath of the historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, politicians and pundits have denounced the Supreme Court justices and the Court itself for holding opposing views on the interpretation of the Court. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the justices “right-wing politicians” and many journalists called the Court “activists.” Most concerning were legal analysts who fueled misleading accounts of the opinion or the record of this Court. Notably, it is precisely what the Court anticipated in condemning those who would make arguments “designed to stoke unfounded fear.”

Vice President Kamala Harris and others repeated the claims that same-sex marriage, contraceptives, and other rights are now in danger. The Court, however, expressly and repeatedly stated that this decision could not be used to undermine those rights: “Abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.'” The Court noted:

“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 protection of what Roe called “potential life.” 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. 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” as a matter of any significance.”

Indeed, I cannot recall an opinion when the Court was more adamant in prospectively blocking the use of a holding in future cases. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, suggested that the Court should reexamine the rationale for such rights but also emphasized that the majority of the Court was clearly holding that the opinion could not be used in that way. Thomas wrote:

“The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Nevertheless, on CNN, legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers echoed the common claim that this decision could now be used to unravel an array of other rights and “criminalizing every single aspect” of women’s reproductive healthcare. However, Rodgers went even further. She suggested that states could ban menstrual cycle tracking: “Are they going to be able to search your apps—you know there’s apps that track your menstrual cycle. You know how far are these states going to try and go?”

On ABC, legal analyst Terry Moran declared “We are in a new era where the reaching for the center to keep the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public, to keep the debate going, is over.” I do not want to be unfair to Moran. I understand that Moran was referring to how the Court would be perceived by the public, though many citizens obviously support this ruling.

The comment reflects the view of many that the legitimacy is now lost because a majority follow a narrow constitutional interpretative approach rather than the preferred broad interpretative approach. That sounds a lot like your legitimacy is based entirely on whether I agree with your constitutional views.

Moran said that this reflected a “new era” of the “activist court.” However, the Court has actually rendered a high percentage of unanimous or near unanimous cases. I have been writing for a couple years how the Court seems to be speaking through its decisions in issuing such rulings in contradiction to such claims of rigid ideology. Justice Stephen Breyer and other colleagues have swatted back such claims that this is a “conservative court” driven by ideology.

Even ABC itself has recognized this record, writing in an earlier story:

“An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court’s opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.

That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.”

None of that has stopped legal analysts from portraying the court as “activist.” Of greater concern are the attack on the justices themselves, including the entirely false clam that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch committed perjury in their confirmation hearings.

One can obviously disagree with this interpretation. I have long disagreed with some of these justices on rights like privacy. However, this is a good-faith constitutional view that is shared by many in the legal profession. Of course, few law professors share this view because there are comparably few conservatives left on law faculties. There are even fewer conservative or libertarian legal analysts with mainstream media. That creates a misleading echo chamber as legal experts and media figures dismiss the decision of the Court as “activist” and “political.”

During the Trump Administration, many of these same figures denounced former President Donald Trump for his attacks on judges who ruled against his cases. Many of us noted that those judges had good-faith reasons for their rulings and their integrity should not be questioned. Yet, it now seems open season on any justice or judge who follows a more narrow, textual approach to constitutional interpretation.

Media figures and legal experts are not just content with disagreeing with the Court’s analysis but want to trash these jurists as craven, unethical people. Politicians like Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., called the justices “far-right, racist.”

There was a typical exchange on CNN Tonight between conservative former Politico reporter Carrie Sheffield and former Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-IA). Sheffield said:

“I personally prefer that, but I know that people on the other side don’t prefer that. That is the beauty of federalism to say that people will migrate. They will vote with their feet at the end of the day. So, as much as I would like to see a federal ban, I know that is politically unlikely. So, that, I think, is the best compromise. In fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg said …”

Sheffield was then cut off by Finkenauer, who said, “Do not say her name tonight from your mouth.”

That is a curious moment since Ginsburg herself criticized the opinion as going too far. At The University of Chicago Law School, Ginsburg stated on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that Roe gave

“the opponents of access to abortion … a target to aim at relentlessly and attributed not to the democratic process, but to nine unelected old men.” She added that “the history of the year since then is that the momentum, momentum has been on the other side. The cases that we get now on abortion are all about restrictions on access to abortion and not about expanding the rights of women.”

On “The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations” in 2019, Ginsburg noted:

“The court had an easy target because the Texas law was the most extreme in the nation,” she maintained. Ginsburg explained that based on the Texas law at the center of Roe v. Wade, “abortion could be had only if necessary to save the woman’s life” with no exceptions for rape or incest.

I thought that Roe v. Wade was an easy case and the Supreme Court could have held that most extreme law unconstitutional and put down its pen,” she added. “Instead, the court wrote an opinion that made every abortion restriction in the country illegal in one fell swoop and that was not the way that the court ordinarily operates.”

Finkenauer’s insistence that pro-life advocates could not utter the name of Ginsburg did not apply to pro-choice advocates, even those who blame the late justice for the Roe reversal. I wrote during Ginsburg’s service that she was taking a huge risk by declining to retire to guarantee that her seat would be filled by someone appointed by a Democratic president. I specifically noted that Roe could be reversed and her legacy lost due to a desire to remain on the Court for a couple more years. I was criticized for that column. However, now liberals are raising that decision and blaming Ginsburg for Dobbs.

Hollywood Reporter columnist Scott Feinberg tweeted “the terrible irony is that her decision to stay too long at the party helped lead to the destruction of one of the things she cared about the most. Sadly, this will be a big part of her legacy. Journalist Eoin Higgins was more direct “Thanks especially to RBG today for making this possible.” In a particularly offensive posting, writer Gabrielle Perry  declared “Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slow roasting in hell.”

This reckless rhetoric is becoming the norm in our discussions of this and other legal controversies. We are losing a critical mass of mature and sensible voices in discussing such cases. Instead, analysts are expected to reinforce a narrative and amplify the anger in the coverage of such cases. That is a great loss to our profession and only will fuel the unhinged rage of some who only consider the conclusion, and not the analysis, of this opinion.

 

315 thoughts on “The Dobbs Decision Unleashes Rage and Revisionism”

  1. From Reuters:

    “The decision will also intensify debate over the legitimacy of the court, once an unassailable cornerstone of the American democratic system but increasingly under scrutiny for its more aggressively conservative decisions on a range of issues.“

    The clear takeaway is: “whole-cloth” decisions are examples of democracy in action while decisions based on the constitution’s text (and limits) usurp democracy.

    And these are the very same people screaming that January 6th was a frontal attack on “our democracy”…

    The hypocrisy of it all makes me want to puke..

  2. So…, let’s see if every state in the country is willing to put referendum on the ballot this next November on whether abortion should be made legal in their state.

    This of course ignores the barbarity of the prospect of women having more rights in some states than others, dependent on their address and economic status…

    But it should smoke out the swine working behind the scene for evangelical and pharmaceutical money.

    1. The words you should’ve used were “the barbarity of the prospect that some unborn babies would have less right to remain alive in some states than others, dependent of their addresses.”

  3. It has happened. Proteus the robot/super computer gives birth to a human baby. Glory be.

  4. Rage and emotion are all the Left have to run their lives and apparently the lives of others. They forever assailed the Catholic Church for allegedly being authoritarian, intolerant, judgmental and for the sin of pushing back on Muslims (for invading Europe with their centuries of barbaric killing, torturing, raping women and children) with the Crusades. Since the 1960s, the Left have destroyed American institutions gleefully while calling it “freedom, truth, diversity”, small comfort for the 60 millions lives ended by abortionists since 1973.

    Even the dissenting Justices ended their last paragraph in the SCOTUS decision, with using emotion because Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor especially are bereft of any intellectual scholarship. This is really the crux of our national pathology.

    They knew that “the legitimacy of the Court [is] earned over time.” Id., at 868. They also would have recognized that it can be destroyed much more quickly. They worked hard to avert that outcome in Casey. The American public, they thought, should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread—that a new majority, adhering to a new “doctrinal school,” could “by dint of numbers” alone expunge their rights. Id., at 864. It is hard—no, it is impossible—to conclude that anything else has happened here. One of us once said that “[i]t is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.” S. Breyer, Breaking the Promise of Brown: The Resegregation ofAmerica’s Schools 30 (2022). For all of us, in our time on this Court, that has never been more true than today. In overruling Roe and Casey, this Court betrays its guiding principles.

    With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

    Such is the dint of intelectual vacuousness of these 3 Justices, with John Roberts not too far behind.

    This is what Leftism domination of government schools and higher education have produced: intellectual poverty on a horrific scale

    Funny how the Left are wailing about the loss of rights of a “woman” when just 2 months ago they had no idea of what a woman was. They must have all become biologists!

    1. Turley seems to be either obtuse in his analysis or just ignorant about why there is such an issue with the conservative justices “assurances” that other rights are not going to be struck down.

      The court has lost a lot of credibility among the majority of the population and it’s already well documented that the justices lied during their confirmation hearings.

      Alito has already shown that his “assurances” are meaningless. Since the majority of the conservatives in the court have clearly stated that stare decisis is not going to be important to them. Justice Thomas already signaled that the court wants to revisit the other cases regarding contraception, same sex marriages, and anything decided by the substantive due process doctrine. In fact Thomas outright declared that such a doctrine be eliminated completely. That’s not just mere opinion it’s a message to the right to pitch cases towards the court where they will get the opportunity to “review” those cases again and promptly strike them down.

      The extremists on the right are already gearing up to put forth laws criminalizing travel to other states to have an abortion. Tucker Carlson is already complaining about companies footing the bill for travel expenses to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal. I wouldn’t be surprised if republican states start passing laws against these “woke” corporations punishing them for being defiant and exercising their free speech rights.

      This is going to be really bad for Republican states. Their economies will suffer. The ramifications of more teen pregnancies, women not being able to get the jobs they want and increasing poverty and debt burden without any comprehensive programs like paid maternity leave, affordable child care, even adoption choices.

      The foster care system will be filled with unwanted children and the state’s taxpayers will be footing the bill.

      Make no mistake, they will go after contraception and medications such as Plan B.

      Religious zealots will become emboldened and push for jailing women because they had a “miscarriage”. Women will not seek medical care because anything suspicious will be reported to authorities as a possible attempt at an abortion.

      There’s really one solution in dealing with this court. Unpack it. By increasing the number of justices diluting the conservative majority. Republicans packed the court. Democrats can do the same.

      1. Svelaz says:

        “Religious zealots will become emboldened and push for jailing women because they had a “miscarriage”.

        It will be fascinating to observe how anti-abortion legislatures attempt to enforce this prohibition against abortion. It would be illogical to imprison the abortionist but not the mother in the “first-degree premeditated murder of the baby.” The push for a federal ban on abortion would be obvious since the anti-abortionists are never going to be content with people having the availability to abort simply by crossing state lines. We are likely to see ads for “Abortion tourism.”

        You say:

        “The court has lost a lot of credibility among the majority of the population and it’s already well documented that the justices lied during their confirmation hearings.”

        I would not say they lied for the reasons that Turley has noted. They were certainly disingenuous because it would appear they were just paying lip service to stare decisis in order to get confirmed.

          1. Svelaz,

            Because it is inappropriate for a nominee to be asked to promise that he or she will not overrule Roe and Casey, it is not possible for them to lie even if he or she intends to do just that. Their statements defending stare decisis are truthful on their face albeit disingenuous.

            I don’t deny that there was a concerted effort to nominate to the Court Conservatives philosophically hostile to Roe.
            But, as Turley points out, these confirmation hearings are meaningless and pure theatrics. The only way to determine a nominee’s judicial inclination is to look at their track record.

            The Constitution was written by men whose attitudes are out of step with modern realities. The fact that the Bill of Rights did not restrict government from interfering with personal autonomy is the source of our problem. Back then, the privacy issues now confronting us could not have been foreseen by the framers. Progressives have been rectifying the Constitution ever since through Amendments and judicial interpretation, for the Constitution was stacked in favor of white Christian men of property. No Constitution would be written today as it was then.

            1. Jeff,

              I’m not Svelaz. I’m the Anonymous you recently nicknamed “Deep Throat.”

              And I doubt that you read Luppen’s analysis of Alito’s statements. Alito was not “asked to promise that he … will not overrule Roe and Casey.” He was asked how he’d go about analyzing the case. And he lied about that, as is totally clear if you look at what he said under oath and then look at how he actually went about analyzing the case in Dobbs.

              The nominees are under oath in their hearings. It’s one thing to elide or deflect. It’s another to lie.

              “The only way to determine a nominee’s judicial inclination is to look at their track record.”

              In many cases, they also have otther things that people have written, not just court rulings. For example, in Alito’s case, they also had his statements in his application for a promotion under Reagan, including “the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion.” I’m again going to recommend that you read the discussion I linked to.

              1. Anonymous,

                I meant a nominee’s entire record of writings not just his rulings. And, of course, I am aware that a SC nominee is under oath at his hearing. I had hoped you would give me more credit than that!

                True, I did not read the entire article, but I read enough to get the gist of it. Even if Alito did not subscribe to the exact stare decisis analysis as he previously had indicated, whose to say that his judicial philosophy had not evolved?

                The fact that he had written, “the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion” does not preclude him from upholding Roe on account of stare decisis. I would not have voted for him on the strength of his past writings! I would not even bother to attend the confirmation hearings since they are pro forma.

                Every case which reaches the SC is distinguishable from every case previously before it; otherwise, it would have been decided below on account of stare decisis. Hence, a SC justice, unlike lower judges, are not strictly bound by previous SC decisions because the present case presents a novel issue. Of course, stare decisis is a foundational principle of the law, but it is not inviolate. If there are good reasons to overturn a long-standing precedent, one must do it. Tradition is a presumptive reason to keep-on doing something but it is not unrebuttable.

                It is impossible to prove that a justice is lying when it comes to his opinion. Opinions are not facts and they change over time. The question in Dobbs is whether Alito’s opinion is based upon sound arguments. Unfortunately, his values are weighted differently than those of progressives.

                Hopefully, people will realize the need to take matters in their own hands and vote for change.

                1. Jeff,

                  I disagree that “Every case which reaches the SC is distinguishable from every case previously before it; otherwise, it would have been decided below on account of stare decisis. Hence, a SC justice, unlike lower judges, are not strictly bound by previous SC decisions because the present case presents a novel issue.”

                  There was no novel issue in Dobbs. Had the conservative SCOTUS majority not been looking for a way to overturn Roe, they never would have granted cert; the lower court ruling against Dobbs would have stood. All it takes to reach SCOTUS are 4 Justices willing to grant cert, for whatever reason they wish. For their purposes, various lower court abortion cases were interchangeable.

                  “It is impossible to prove that a justice is lying when it comes to his opinion.”

                  I agree, as opinions aren’t T/F statements, only beliefs that are either shared or not. But Alito made some T/F statements, and some of them were false, and I think he should be questioned by the Judiciary Committee about them. There are other questions that various Justices need to be asked. Roberts should be questioned about why he waited until Kavanaugh was confirmed before referring the multiple complaints about him to the 10th (IIRC) Circuit for an ethics review, Kavanaugh should be questioned about the allegations that he lied about other things in the hearings, such as his drinking to excess and who paid off his large debts, …

                  Yes, people need to vote. But dishonesty in the judiciary shouldn’t be tolerated.

                  1. I fear that a few of the Justices have a chip on their shoulder on account of being humiliated during their confirmation hearings, and I don’t think we should aggravate them further with charges of lying. They serve for life, and the last thing we want to do is to embitter them towards progressives so that they may be more inclined to settle old scores.

                    Let’s just get out there and vote!

                  2. Anonymous,

                    I saw reported that Kavanaugh made statements to Senator Collins privately which were very misleading. But even had he promised to her that he would never overturn Roe, his doing the opposite would not necessarily be a lie; rather, he just broke his promise. But we don’t want Justices to make such promises. The only lie one could accuse a SC nominee would be his denying something that he said or wrote or did in the past which turned out to be false.

                    I read recently a rather cute means by which a person subject to perjury could avoid being accused of lying. Instead of stating, “I have no recollection of ….,” it is more clever to qualify that statement, “I have no unaided recollection of ….” That is new to me.

    2. “. . . assailed the Catholic Church for allegedly being authoritarian . . .”

      “allegedly”?!

      Whitewash history much?

  5. Professor……..We saw you early this morning, live on Fox, and so appreciated the informed intelligence, and calmness that you always bring to the table.
    And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Ruth G.’s family persuade her to stay on the court well after she became ill?

  6. The real issue is the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which, by the way, was rammed through by Unionists who used it as an instrument to force the former seceded states to accept it as a condition of readmission to the Union (which Lincoln himself had declared they were in rebellion against and never left.) Its primary purpose was to establish the rights of the slaves that had been freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Nowhere does it address any “rights” for special interest groups, specifically women. The Constitution specified that all issues not specifically addressed by it were to be left to the states. I was a single man in my twenties when Roe v Wade was decided and knew a lot of young professional women. Most, if not all, of them stated that they wouldn’t have an abortion if they became pregnant even though they could.

  7. As a writer I’m embarrassed for a profession that can’t report objectively. Even so much as to abuse their loyal readers. DC is also full of lawyers that no better what this means. My wife who works in law says you can win every argument when you tell half the facts. What’s more here I don’t understand how it can blankedly be said that abortion is now illegal with massive protests in NYC (looting, arson, etc) when – in fact – one can have abortion there in the ninth month. Jeff Greenfield once candidly said the media is not honest in the reporting of this issue.

  8. The Dobb’s decision did not say there is no right to an abortion. It said that abortion is not a fundamental right.

  9. Lipstick on pig efforts notwithstanding, Turley…, this is a dark, dark moment in court history. Forgive us for not showing trust in what this activist — yes, activist — court is doing. Granted, as it’s no secret about court strategy from the right in recent decades (how could it not be obvious???) the problems lie even more with our fatally flawed representative democracy. The fact the Federalist Society can strategically place jurists who can pull off minority rule to the degree they remove long standing rights of women, rights that are supported publicly 2 to 1, shows a fully dysfunctional system in full stride….

    Is it no wonder there is huge concern for any other privacy related right to also be attacked by this court?

    Granted it’s due just as much to progressives and democrats falling down on the job, over decades. Still doesn’t take away from the bad faith efforts of the people you represent though.

        1. Have you read Roe or Dobbs? Just curious. Pretty clear to me that the Court essentially legislated from the Bench. J. White characterized it as “raw judicial power”. IMO, the whole issue has always been a political question that the Courts should have avoided. But with the doctrine of “political question” being out of vouge, they went where Angels fear to tread.

          1. Never ask a “progressive” to read more than a couple paragraphs. That’s work, and we all know how “progressives” hate and fear work.

          2. And they did for good, public health, reasons. Old white men have always behaved badly when invading women’s wombs.

          3. And just curious on my end, can you not see that returning to the history around abortion that we’ve already experienced isn’t sheer lunacy? Difference being now that the end result of this, and the end around as it were, is a massive windfall for the pharmaceutical lobby. Let the religionists attack pharmaceutical profits and see if they fare as well they did against a corruptible court. Abortion drugs control the market within two years. Medical resentment filters through their lobby to lean on government over loss of billable procedures in half the states in the country. No reason for top flight obstetrics training in red states now >> direct effect on money to universities in affected states. Big employers pledging healthcare to their staffs choose to relocate in blue states because whatever cost benefits accrued locating in red states with poor worker protections drifts away as the companies can’t massively deny abortion coverage just because the court chose to step in it. Good times.

            Dog catches car. Only a bunch of poorer, less address fortunate women get caught in the cross hairs for awhile here.

            Good work in the judiciary. Morons.

            1. Your possible projection of the future (with apologies to Al Kooper) indicates a lack of faith in the democracy that you profess to support

          4. Funny thing: as i read further into the majority opinion it seems to build perfect grounds for overruling Heller and makes the previous day’s gun right decision in NY an absolute head scratcher.

          5. Not only that, but the majority Dobbs decision almost demands abortion be put as a referendum on every single state ballot this November since the decision has such sweeping and destabilizing effects. If the issue is indeed to be relegated to the states in lieu of more powerful federal protections meant to protect people from religiously based decisions at the state level…., well gottdamn, it should be put on ballots and settled ASAP.

    1. Anonymous: You mean it’s a “dark moment” when judges actually follow the Constitution?

    2. “…the problems lie even more with our fatally flawed representative democracy…”

      The problem is not with our institutions or even the Constitution that created them. The problem, as always, is with human nature and the desire for power by a few and their willingness to impose that view upon others. This is why the framers put in the “checks and balances”, separation of powers, federalism, etc. One issue – slavery – got us into a civil war within eighty years. It’s been almost 150 years since the end of that war and it seems like we’re on the verge of another one. We can – and must – do better. If I could have one wish it would be to get rid of both the Democratic and Republican parties. They make me sick with their constant asinine, childish behavior. I have no use for either party.

      Sorry, I’ll get off my soapbox now…

      1. The problem, as always, is with human nature…

        That is absolutely 1/2 of the problem and the framers did their best to protect the people from themselves. The other 1/2 is the reason governments legitimately exist in the first place: to secure the unalienable rights equally for our citizens.

        We are closer to another civil war than ever because our progressive political class have convinced (brainwashed) enough people that all rights come from government. And the only security of “those” rights is found by trusting a political party to protect you against their “political” enemies.

        1. Equal representation isn’t in the Constitution. And the EC and gerrymandering ensure that all votes aren’t equal.

              1. Yes, I am an authority where you are concerned. One can’t take the stupid out of the dumb.You keep proving it.

        2. Olly says:

          “We are closer to another civil war than ever because our progressive political class have convinced (brainwashed) enough people that all rights come from government.”

          Oh god, again with the faith-based Natural Law nonsense?

          I give you Mencken:

          “For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt. The more stupid the man, the larger his stock of adamantine assurances, the heavier his load of faith.”

      2. Point taken. Just know the Constitution left the holes the power hungry have driven through.

    3. Here’s the problem with words like “supported publicly 2 to 1.” We are a nation of states. You get to the 2:1 nationally (and I have not done the math precisely) because you have 10:1 in CA and NY where most of the people are but only 1:3 in many of the states. NY and CA want to be able to kill children who are 39-45 weeks old and now they can. The states that oppose killing babies (unless the mother is also likely to die) once the mother knows there is a baby can now have what they want. In a nation of states, why should NY and CA dictate what the other states want on this or any other subject (as has been pointed out elsewhere, when this all shakes out, even the most regressive state by the left’s definition will be more liberal than most of the EU’s states)

    4. “The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

      That is obiter dictum.

  10. The Democrat Party, and the left wing nuts, can only do a finite amount of work critical to the Nations well being.

    pronouns
    Bathroom laws
    Drag queen story hours
    defending men in women sports
    teaching kindergartners to masturbate.
    De-funding the police
    THREE impeachments of President Trump
    Crossfire Hurricane.
    Federalizing elections
    $5.00 gas. (Which is exactly what Obama, and now Biden, PROMISED to deliver to the people)
    Inflation
    Energy ignorance.
    Schools teaching white first graders they are racists.

    There is much more.

    This gets the point across.
    Democrats are ignoring all the evidence that they no longer represent the people. Democrats actually believe, President Trump is the problem.

    When in fact, it is Democrat Policies lack support from the voters.

    States have been busy, following the Constitution. Self governing. Democrats have been busy passing legislation, to kill babies post natal.

    Democrats have been busy abusing States rights, by usurping power, the Constitution fails to enumerate as a federal power. Instead of crafting and execution and agenda driven by the people, they insist on catering to the wild left wing activists.

    Democrats have gotten exactly what they have been working on. (Abortion has always been nothing but a campaign cudgel used to beat their political foes)

  11. “it is precisely what the Court anticipated in condemning those who would make arguments “designed to stoke unfounded fear.””

    There are already states outlawing abortion.

    The response is not “unfounded fear.” We’re rightfully afraid of the right-wing court that has already taken away a women’s constitutional right to abortion, especially when Justice Thomas in his concurrence also says that the rights to contraception, consensual sex between people of the same gender, and same-sex marriage may come next.

    “Vice President Kamala Harris and others repeated the claims that same-sex marriage, contraceptives, and other rights are now in danger.”

    Yes, because Justice Thomas said so!!! But of course, you can’t bring yourself to be honest about that Turley. Here’s what Thomas wrote:
    “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [birth control], Lawrence [sex between people of the same sex], and Obergefell [same-sex marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous” … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.”

    “the majority of the Court was clearly holding that the opinion could not be used in that way.”

    The majority of the Court has shown itself to willfully lie, so there is no reason to accept their say-so here.

    Carrie Sheffield: “people will migrate. They will vote with their feet at the end of the day. So, as much as I would like to see a federal ban, I know that is politically unlikely.”

    Mike Pence is already calling for a national ban.

    As for people voting with their feet, many poor women are not in a position to move to another state. But people who can afford it should absolutely make it an issue by voting with their feet and their purses: make it an issue when being recruited by a company, make it an issue in where professional organizations hold their annual conferences, …

    Those of you who are pro-choice and can afford it may want to donate to abortion funds that will help women get to states where abortions are legal (abortionfunds.org). Think about running for local office (runforsomething.net), work to register new voters, work to turn out the vote, and work against voter suppression efforts.

    1. I’ll bet $100 to your $10 that you didn’t read the 230+ page decision before spouting. So obvious.

      1. A rather meaningless bet on your part: who would hold the $? who would certify the result?

        I notice that you haven’t provided any evidence that the factual part of my comment was false. For example, my quote from Thomas’s concurrence is accurate. It’s a fact that Mike Pence is already calling for a national ban: “we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.” It’s a fact that many poor women are not in a position to move to another state.

        My comment also included opinion, not just facts, and my opinions are as valid as yours are.

        1. But your desire to remain “anonymous” kills your credibility….thus rendering your opinion worthless.

        2. ” you haven’t provided any evidence that the factual part of my comment was false.”

          The opinion on the court might differ from yours, but this statement on your part is not true. “The majority of the Court has shown itself to willfully lie.” If anything that might be a characteristic of the minority, but rather than lies, I believe it ignorance on their part. Some of Sotomayor’s statements come to mind.

          Your opinions are frequently based on non-existent facts.

      1. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

        “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

        “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        If you’re now going to complain that the word “abortion” doesn’t appear, lots of words don’t appear in the Constitution. For example, “privacy” doesn’t appear, but you still have a right to privacy. “Separation of church and state” does not appear, yet the Constitution requires it. The phrases “Electoral College” and “congressional districts” do not appear, yet they’re required by the Constitution. The list of words that don’t appear in the Constitution is long, and that does not imply that the Constitution says nothing about the underlying concepts.

      2. “Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendment are women given a “right” to abortion . . .”

        I don’t know which constitution you’re looking at. You seem to have our Constitution confused with a Royal Charter.

        The *U.S.* Constitution does not “give” rights. Nor is it an exhaustive list of rights.

  12. The idiot left is afraid the right will become like them in their fascist push toward totalitarianism.

    1. By the Thirteenth Amendment – BEFORE the former seceded states surrendered so their representatives wouldn’t have a voice in it’s vote in Congress.

  13. One female Justice had sex with a police officer and got pregnant. He said that there was a hole in his rubber and he blamed Roberts. The new born will have the middle name: Condom.

  14. Jonathan,

    This piece should have been edited before it was published. Grammatical errors have been a continuing problem and, unfortunately, they affect your credibility, which is otherwise high. Substantively, this is a good article, but I wish you would have someone review all of your work before you hit “send”. Thanks.

    Lou Stahl

  15. Many women will suffer and/or die a horrible death because they will be denied medical treatment. It had already been happening and it will get worse.
    And Republicans do not care one bit.

  16. “The Court, however, expressly and repeatedly stated that this decision could not be used to undermine those rights: ”

    That’s true, though in his concurring statement, Clarence Thomas advocated for different decisions to undo those rights.

    These are the same people for the most part that said Roe was “settled law.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/clarence-thomass-abortion-opinion-revisits-same-sex-marriage-contraception-11656161978?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

  17. I always look forward to your measured analysis of legal matters. Thank you.

    However, would you allow me a mild critique of my own? In your interview w/ Shawn Hannity you repeatedly referred to “the right to an abortion” likely being supported in most states going forward. The Dobbs case couldn’t be more clear: THERE IS NO ‘RIGHT TO AN ABORTION’. That is the essential finding of the decision. The US Constitution does not contain and never has contained a “right” to abort a human life. Yes, abortion can be deemed legal and protected and regulated by law, but isuch regulations will never again be based on a Constitutional right.

    1. The Dobb’s decision did not say there is no right to an abortion. It said that abortion is not a fundamental right.

    2. In reply to Charles Nukem’s statement: “…..but such regulations will never again be based on a Constitutional right.” Each state has its own Supreme Court which may deem abortion a fundamental right under its state constitution… we’ve already seen a movement toward such findings in some states.

      1. True, but barring a Constitutional Amendment, which is highly unlikely, you’re never going to see it on a Federal level again.

        1. Yes, the federal right is blocked for so long as the SCOTUS is comprised with this bench. It’s not difficult to imagine however that a packing, or even an unfortuitous replacement of 2 or 3 of the justices in the next 20 years results in the rediscovery of the right under different, better constructed (legally speaking) footing. I do not even think it implausible that the non-originalist justices, whoever they may be in the future, utilize Alito’s basic constitutional framework but conclude differently with respect to the history of abortion and perhaps a mother’s choice as a privilege and immunity. This just feels far from over and that’s a shame because it ought to be… Alito’s opinion here is a masterpiece of logic and for those of us who believe deeply in the originalist methods of jurisprudence, this ruling strikes a blow against left’s impulse to cast by judicial fiat policy which cannot be accomplished by community vote.

    3. “The US Constitution does not contain and never has contained a “right” to abort . . .”

      And there goes your “right” to determine your own medical choices (including whether to take a vaccine). After all, by the same (irrational) principle: The Constitution does not include a right to choose one’s own medical procedures.

  18. Age of rage indeed. After reading your post regarding MSM talking heads and other comments, I wonder if those people have taken to time to actually read the decision. Seems like that would have been a good first step, followed by some reflection on what it really says. Apparently, liars gonna lie and haters gonna hate. One commenter on Twitter noted that this was a time to remember words from Lincoln’s Inaugural Address – malice towards none and charity for all. Won’t happen, but it would be refreshing if it did

    1. Indeed it would. It’s no different than them not reading the Florida bill that makes no mention of ‘gay’ and did not affect teens *at all* in their educations, and that one was just a couple of pages long. I have never seen such a broad swath of people reacting solely to the facts of their imaginations based only on how they personally feel they need things to be and other people to speak and act to be ‘ok’. These folks were just not prepared in any way for a world in which they must live with other people, it seems, regardless of age.

      Then again, for many, this past six years has likely been the first time in their lives they did not get everything they wanted exactly when they want it. There’s a word for that, starts with a ‘t’.

    2. Good points, Whig! It is the Age of Rage, to be sure. I will read the opinion and the dissent before I comment. In the meantime, I will say that it is likely that many of the protesters have not read Dobbs, Casey or Roe. We are living in an age of intellectual laziness in which many folks formulate their opinions based on sound bites provided by an uninformed and biased media.

      1. I think RBG makes decisions easier.

        “Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.”’ That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them

        No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conformhrfg to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible.Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.” _RBG

        Her understanding would have saved us a lot of grief.

      2. After reading a sampling of the media commentary I doubt that very many of them read the findings.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: