The petition by an alumni group at Rhodes College is seeking to remove Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett from the school’s “Hall of Fame” due to her vote in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The petition accuses Barrett of violating the school’s honor code by testifying untruthfully in her confirmation hearing. In reality, the letter engages in gross misrepresentations of her testimony in the latest attack on her character and honesty. It is a letter that should be condemned by people regardless of their view of reproductive rights. The letter also declares Justice Barrett to be a threat to democracy because she holds opposing views on constitutional interpretation.
The petition is directed to the school’s president Jennifer Collins and Director of Community Standards Richard Adams. While the signatories insists that they were “impelled” to write the letter, this is just the latest such letter targeting Barrett. Three alumni are listed as original authors or sponsors: Rob Marus, ’97, Katherine Morgan Breslin, ’98, and Kimberly Pillsbury Steele, ‘98.
According to the letter, the signatories’ “firm belief in the Rhodes Honor Code we all signed impels us to make this request.” However, Rob Marus and Katherine Morgan Breslin also authored a letter in 2020 opposing the confirmation of Barrett as “diametrically opposed to the values of truth, loyalty, and service that we learned at Rhodes.”
Rob Marus started a Facebook group opposing her appointment to the Supreme Court. Marus appears to be the Associate Vice President for Communications at Association of American Universities (AAU) where he handles “AAU’s writing and messaging, ensuring message consistency and clarity as well as utility in reaching AAU’s strategic communications goals.” (An inquiry was sent to Marus to confirm that he is indeed one of the main sponsors of this petition).
Marus was not writing in his capacity as a VP of the AAU and has every right to speak against the justice over the disagreement on these issues. However, if this is the same Rob Marus, it is surprising to see someone holding a high position in an academic organization at the head of a campaign to sanction a justice for holding opposing views (particularly based on such false claims). The AAU is premised on principles of academic freedom and free speech. The use of such false and misleading attacks to sanction a graduate undermines those principles.
These signatories seek to sanction Barrett for holding opposing views on issues that have divided the court and the legal profession for decades.
The latest letter repeats the false claim that Barrett misled the Senate on her views on Roe. To invoke the honor code to make such a false claim truly captures the sense of impunity exhibited by many critics today. The irony is that the opposite is true about Barrett’s answers which were more substantive than her predecessors.
At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define[s] cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent).
Moreover some of these same Rhodes alumni opposed Barrett because her view of Roe was clearly critical. Indeed, senators lined up to vote against her on that very basis.
In the letter, the alumni declare “It was, at best, disingenuous of Justice Barrett to admit that she did not believe Roe to be a ‘super-precedent’ yet then suggest that did not mean the case ‘should’ be overruled, despite clearly adhering to a legal philosophy that would obviously lead her to rule against Roe.” That statement perfectly captures the vacuous quality of these points. There is nothing disingenuous in saying that a case is not super-precedent but still might not be overturned. The point is only that the case is protected by the same principles of a stare decisis as other cases, which affords protection to precedent but does not make such cases inviolate. Barrett’s statement was refreshingly honest and accurate.
The alumni group also accuses Justice Barrett of being “one of the biggest current threats to our fundamental rights, the stability of our nation, and our democracy.” So the mere fact that Justice Barrett shares a view of constitutional interpretation with millions of other citizens (and many judges and lawyers), she is now a threat to our democracy?
The use of clearly false allegations in the name of upholding the honor system does not seem to concern these signatories. Yet, it is Justice Barrett who is accused of “an egregious lack of fidelity with the Rhodes Honor System.” They use the allegations to demand that “Justice Barrett be removed from the Rhodes College Hall of Fame based on the above violations of the Rhodes Honor System.”
Rhodes College should celebrate that it played a role in the education of a woman who has achieved such great success in the law regardless of disagreements with her constitutional views or positions. We can have passionate debates on those issues while showing mutual respect and civility.
That has not been the case at Rhodes College where Justice Barrett’s portraits have been repeatedly defaced. One had the words “Go F*ck Yourself” scribbled on it. Another featured Barrett as the devil, along with more profane language.
These alumni fuel such anger with these unfounded and reckless attacks. This is a controversy that should be a clarion call for the entire Rhodes College community. This is a wonderful school with an excellent academic reputation. People of good-faith should have the courage to stand with Justice Barrett as an alumna regardless of their agreement or disagreement with her views.
As a professor and a jurist, Barrett has written on these issues for decades with comprehensive and at times profound observations on how to approach constitutional interpretation. We can disagree on those conclusions while condemning those who seek to slander or cancel her.
I agree wholeheartedly with Jonathan Turley, but I still agree more with the efforts of the Rhodes alumni. How to rectify this seeming incongruence? This way: In finding ANY legal rationale upon which to overturn Roe, Amy Coney Barrett has created such severe “wrongs” against women that it is totally impossible to qualify them. In some respects, Blackmun’s Roe opinion, based solidly in substantive due process, is as sound as any SCOTUS ruling ever has been. But, certainly, even the most “solid” SCOTUS opinion may be tinkered with, or “improved,” as per the eyes of other successive SCOTUS judges who would like to do it. In this case, SCOTUS judges, incl. Amy C.B., will meet their devil in Hell one day; it is beyond belief that they would seek to find ANY reason to overturn the fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade — based solely upon the overall impact on women’s health that such an overruling will cause.
Often, in the law, when making decisions about the validity or enforcement of a law, a relatively simple balancing act is performed by judges: In its basics, the “virtue” of upholding a law is examined along with that law’s intrinsic existential “virtue,” or its degree thereof, per se to society; then these value judgments are compared to, and weighted against, the “harms” which shall be caused to society via upholding the law. When it is found that more harm results to society from upholding a law, which in its essence may be a “good” law, than from striking the law down on any reasonable basis, the law must be struck down. This is the way that it must go with the Dobbs case. One way or another, the absolute harm which this holding will cause to the overall status of maternal and child health in the U.S. PLUS the innate indignities which this holding is set to impose on women in general should “be enough” to see the Dobbs opinion itself be overruled forthwith.
In currently despising Amy Coney Barrett, and trying to deface her portraits and cancel her otherwise, the Rhodes College alumni perhaps ARE being petty and vindictive, and perhaps the legal arguments that they are making to support their claims in their petition are more baseless than supported. However, I don’t care, since the SCOTUS holding in Dobbs that Amy C.B. helped to effect, in its overall impact on the health status of women and children, is an abomination. There have been many times in our history when “right thinking” and ostensibly “moral and noble” people led society to make choices (for the “good” of all) that tore all of society apart and instigated only misery. The holding in the Dobbs case is yet another one of those historical events, or missteps. Just as Prohibition had to bite the dust; just as segregation had to bite the dust; just as rules of primogeniture had to bite the dust; just as the AFDC program in its original format had to bite the dust; just as Biden’s vaccine mandate laws had to bite the dust. Next up: Any laws which mandate EVs are going to have to bite the dust for the SAME reasons! Doesn’t matter what “noble” and “moral” reasons ever were used to rationalize those societal practices and the laws written to enforce them — they had to come to an end for the sake of what in essence IS “public health” — or a restoration to American society of the civility and respect for authority which are the very basic human values upon which Prof Turley harps.
Contrary to Prof Turley’s point of view, the primary issue here is not whether any of us may, or may not, disagree with Amy C.B.’s legal reasoning or perspective. It is the damage and the utter disrespect to established concepts of individual liberty that the END which her perspective and use of “legal reasoning” have reached. That end is reprehensible and must be undone. Otherwise, she shall be burned in effigy every day for the rest of her life, and with my full approval, whether these acts of hate toward the woman are “petty” and “vindictive” and little more than basic expressions of “hate speech.”
Sentiments among Americans MATTER, whether a strict interpretation of any laws may validate them or not. No matter how much a “leader” may consider him/herself to be “right,” if by being “right” that leader engenders only the animosity of the people who are being led, the leader has failed and may be a lot of vulgar things, but never is “right.” Actually, I think my sixth grade homeroom teacher once taught us that when she dared to break up my class’es makeshift “vulgar” and “immoral” crap games in the cloak room … but, upon realizing how harmless, all things considered, that they were, she changed her mind (or looked the other way). Under those specific circumstances way back then, her taking away our dice was on a par with stealing candy from a baby. What Justice Barrett has done is the same thing: She just has stolen all sense of self-respect and self-autonomy away from many legions of American women who, in many respects, remain naive and, perhaps, babies themselves in the ways of the world.
Yawn!
I second the ‘yawn’;
This is punctuats the truth that “Hall of Fame” walls are meaningless. Quality, accomplishment, and integrity is not measured by recognition in the form of statuary, street names, building idetifications, medals, or photos hanging on walls.
Deciding abortion law through the legislative process, as in Europe, is a threat to Democracy? I have never witnessed a movement more hostile to self government.
This is another strike by the Red Army, harassing those who don’t toe the line.
The reason why every 4 years Liberals breathlessly claimed Roe was on the line was because abortion rights are not included in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say that a woman can abort a baby up until viability, after which she may not abort without medical cause.
When you legislate abortion, then it reflects the will of the people. If enough people are unhappy with the law that passes, they can ensure it gets changed.
This is just more organized harassment of Barrett. Democrats portray conservatives as evil incarnate so as to avoid having to make a cogent argument.
“Deciding abortion law through the legislative process” is tyranny of the majority — a decidedly anti-American idea.
RE:”“Deciding abortion law through the legislative process” is tyranny of the majority — a decidedly anti-American idea.” Curious? Is not returning that question to the States in effect also deciding abortion law through the legislative process. Explain.
“Explain.”
It’s “law” by majority vote, which is tyranny of the majority.
RE::”It’s “law” by majority vote, which is tyranny of the majority.” …..which is the criitcism of a democracy hence we have a Constitutional Republic with a tripartite government. Are you at odds with the way business has been ‘conducted’ in these ‘Untied States of Aremica’ thus far? If ‘Yes”, how so and what is your remedy?
“Are you at odds with the way business has been ‘conducted’ in these ‘Untied States of Aremica’ thus far?”
If you mean in politics, then: Yes.
“. . . and what is your remedy?”
Education (not politics). Specifically about the nature and purpose of government. And an understanding and consistent application of the principle of “individual rights.” And more fundamental than that, an understanding and acceptance of “individualism” (as opposed to the collectivism currently suffocating America).
RE:”|Education (not politics). Specifically about the nature and purpose of government.” Well writ. However, even an enlightened, educated, and well-informed electorate will not be the cure for the disease you refer to as ‘majority rule’. There are many variations in electoral systems, with the most common systems being first-past-the-post voting, block voting, the two-round (runoff) system, proportional representation and ranked voting.. Whoever has the most votes wins no matter how the contest is structured.
“Well writ.”
Thank you.
P.S. I like you. You’re thoughtful, sincere, and civilized.
Sam, that is what Roe did.
Work towards amending the constitution to include terminating a pregnancy, thereby denying a human being the right to life. If only pro-abortionists put half as much energy, money, and time solving real problems, like the death of over 100,000 from overdosing on fentanyl the world would be such a better, and brighter place. Taking a life to save a lifestyle, or to save money is sick, and disgusting.
“Work towards amending the constitution to include terminating a pregnancy . . .”
Another person who does not understand the purpose of America’s Constitution.
It is not a Royal charter granting rights. It is not a laundry list of rights. It is essentially a document that limits the government’s use of its police powers.
” It is essentially a document that limits the government’s use of its police powers.”
Sam, that is correct, but when the left favors abortion the left goes all the way. The left has aborted the Constitution of the United States.
Sam, we are a republic, not a straight democracy. Right now, there are ample examples of tyrannies of minority special interest groups.
While you make a good point about democracy, keep in mind that women hold a slight majority in our population, so women have a strong say on this issue. States legislating laws is a very American process.
“States legislating laws is a very American process.”
Which of course is not the issue. The issue is *how*they are legislating.
“Law” by the will of the majority is tyranny of the majority — whether practiced in ancient Athens, a nation, a state, or a county.
How the Left Lies, let us count the ways, an anthem of the Left
“How Do I Lie? Sonnet 666”
– read to the Iambic Pentameter of Elizabeth Barrett Browning :
“How do I lie to thee? Let me count the ways.
I lie to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I lie to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I lie freely, as men strive for right.
I lie purely, as they turn from praise.
I lie with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.
I lie with a lie I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I lie with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but lie better after death
because I just love to lie, it is true”
😜
Did Supreme Court Justices Lie By Claiming They Wouldn’t Overturn Roe V. Wade? Here’s What They Actually Said.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/28/did-supreme-court-justices-lie-by-claiming-they-wouldnt-overturn-roe-v-wade-heres-what-they-actually-said/?sh=5254e9b55420
Justice Neil Gorsuch said in 2017 that “a good judge will consider [Roe] as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other,” and said precedent means the court “move[s] forward” after it decides a case, but did not say he wouldn’t overturn Roe.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in 2018 he “do[es] not get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents I get to follow” and that he “follow[s] them all,” and that Roe is an “important precedent” that has been “reaffirmed many times.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said in 2020 she didn’t believe Roe is a “super precedent” that “no one questions anymore,” but “that does not mean that Roe should be overruled.” Barrett said she would “follow the law of stare decisis” and respect for court precedents if abortion-related cases came before her, but neither she nor Kavanaugh expressly said they would not vote to overturn Roe.
Looks like prevarication to me…
Abortion Bans Aren’t Coming From Mainstream
As the Supreme Court anticipated when it overturned Roe v. Wade, the battle over abortion rights is now being waged state by state. Nowhere is the fight more intense than in Ohio, which has long been considered a national bellwether. Its residents tend to be politically moderate, and polls consistently show that a majority of Ohio voters support legal access to abortion, particularly for victims of rape and incest. Yet, as the recent ordeal of a pregnant ten-year-old rape victim has illustrated, Ohio’s state legislature has become radically out of synch with its constituents.
Longtime Ohio politicians have been shocked by the state’s transformation into a center of extremist legislation, not just on abortion but on such divisive issues as guns and transgender rights. The story is similar in several other states with reputations for being moderate, such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; legislatures have begun proposing laws so far to the right that they could never be passed in the U.S. Congress.
According to David Niven, a political-science professor at the University of Cincinnati, a 2020 survey indicated that less than fourteen per cent of Ohioans support banning all abortions without exceptions for rape and incest. And a 2019 Quinnipiac University poll showed that only thirty-nine per cent of Ohio voters supported the kind of “heartbeat” law that the legislature passed. But the Democrats in the Ohio’s legislature have had no way to mount resistance since 2012. Republicans wield a veto-proof super-majority in both chambers.
Edited From:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/state-legislatures-are-torching-democracy
……………………………………………………………………
This feature length article makes a very strong case that all these abortions bans can be traced to gerrymandering. Republicans can’t lose in most red states. So they’re pushing abortion bans that most people don’t want.
And Republicans don’t care! It’s an attitude like, “Us older White males know what’s best for young women. We’re legislating decency!”
This week, Kansans voted, by a double-digits margins, to maintain abortion rights. Yet only days later Indiana Republican legislators rushed an abortion ban that most Indianans don’t want. And the Republican governor rushed to sign that bill. It’s basically a power grab by religious conservative to subjugate women.
So when Amy Coney Barrett and her Dobbs allies claim that ‘Legislatures should decide’, it’s a disingenuous argument. They know very well that Red State legislatures are thoroughly gerrymandered.
You do not understand the limited role the courts and SCOTUS are designed to perform. Only the elected legislative bodies have the constitutional authority to make law. You and I elect them. They represent us – the courts represent the Constitution.
Lobby your state and federal representatives and senators – stop harassing SCOTUS.
Rhodes to Ruin
Ha! …Paving the Weigh for unyielding condescension heavier than rational consideration.
Does this link work for anyone?
RE:”Absolutely not true..” “Then it appears that each of you is obliged to offer up incontrovertible evidence to support your allegations.”
Though not a direct response to ATS’ statement (self deleted), I have seen evidence reproduced many times that conservatives are more willing to give than people from the left. I don’t have time to look it up, but I think there was a relatively recent study or book showing conservative give 30% more than those on the left even though over-all they have less money. I believe the source of alot of this charity comes from individuals that are members of religious organizations.
Things of this nature are hard to evaluate, but it has been said the left will be “charitable” in their claims to provide everyone with specific things like healthcare, homes, etc. but require everyone to contribute. That is not charity. Milton Friedman discussed this decades ago.
Again, I want to emphasize that I don’t have the research to back me up and find that such determinations require careful analysis of the data points to know is under discussion.
Some of these abortion-rights supporters have a very short-term perspective — and lack of confidence — about ability to win elections and influence policy. If they had confidence in their support numbers (as shown in the Kansas referendum), they’d be crediting the Federal Courts with the Dobbs decision to get Judges out of the abortion policymaking business, and leave it to the voters to figure out.
It’s going to be very hard for SCOTUS to ever strip away abortion rights voted to themselves by the People. To do so in light of Dobbs would require pretzel logic.
pbinca,
SCOTUS has determined that there is no constitutional ‘right’ to abortion and has returned the matter to the states. However, this does not preclude the SCOTUS from taking future cases related to state abortion laws if such laws are alleged to violate the US Constitution.
Hello Ray in SC: Methinks you are 100% correct.
Besides a restriction on a right to travel, what potential constitutional violations are you both seeing for abortion laws? Thanks.
Conerned Citizen, 4th amendment in combination with
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/health/abortion-self-managed-medication.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Health
I’m guessing…
Does this link work for anyone?
Concerned Citizen: Speaking for myself, I think that state-of-the-art medical and scientific technology developed over the past 50 years since Roe create a more nebulous picture of survivable “life,” -for one thing. This, then, touches on the need to identify the stage at which “due process rights” attach to a developing human “life.” At such a stage, we have competing state interests.
More specific to your query, then, is NOT a question of a woman’s right to abortion, but rather, at what stage in development does a fetus gain its own state interest/protection (to be balanced with the woman’s right(s) to abort it? I believe Chief Justice Roberts hinted at this as the “window of opportunity” during which a woman may have to determine/decide to abort before the state’s interest in the fetus presents itself as a countervailing force? So…one example of potential constitutional violation would be where states allow unrestricted abortions beyond that as-yet-undetermined stage?
Court Ignores..
The Costs Of Raising A Child
Based on the most recent data from the Consumer Expenditures Survey, in 2015, a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family. Middle-income, married-couple parents of a child born in 2015 may expect to spend $233,610 ($284,570 if projected inflation costs are factored in*) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise a child through age 17. This does not include the cost of a college education.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child
……………………………………………
This report tells us that a typical middle class family spends about $13,000 per year on each child in the household. And this annual income bracket starts at about $60,000.
In other words, if your household income is under $60,000 per year, the costs of raising a child could be quite challenging. Which means a single mom on a low-wage income scarcely has the resources to provide an adequate upbringing for children.
This brings us to the abortion issue. Studies show women seeking abortions are typically low income and mothers already. Not only can they not afford an additional child, they can’t afford to even get pregnant!
This court is, no doubt, aware that raising children is expensive. This court is also aware that unmarried, low income mothers are far more likely to seek abortions than married, educated professionals.
Yet in the Dobbs decision, this court essentially IGNORED the financial realities of raising children. This court basically said, “We don’t care how poor a woman is, White male legislators are best qualified to write abortion laws”.
So it’s no wonder many people think Amy Coney Barrett is a fink for turning her back on low-income women.
Amazing how this guy still hasn’t learned the job of the Supreme Court is to determine constitutionality not affordability. His icon has been around a long time so he should have learned this along time ago. I guess this proves some are incapable of learning even as they travel this blog from one identity to the next.
Yet in the Dobbs decision, this court essentially IGNORED the financial realities of raising children.
The court did consider the financial realities. Weighed that against the Taxes generated over the lifetime of millions aborted babies and saw a huge income stream the Government could use to improve life for the rest of the Nation.
Seems you refused to consider the financial realities.
RE:”The court did consider the financial realities…” Please cite the language in the ruling which addresses this. Thank you.
see page 58 of the link you provided, do a word search for “financ” and it is mentioned in passing in the majority opinion. However it appears more frequently in the dissenting opinion which is the focus of my reply.
With that said, the argument as to financial burden is irrelevant. Terminating life is never justified. The Left habitually uses the poor, the aggrieved, minorities, immigrants, etc solely for political talking points. The Left does not care about any of these groups except to use them for political scoring. Point of fact: you will never find Left wing politicos volunteering at a free clinic, a homeless shelter, a food pantry, nor assisting immigrants at a center. These are usually staffed precisely by people with religious convictions like Justice Kavanaugh who was known to feed the homeless with his church outreach before being confirmed to SCOTUS.
Poor people have been having babies since the beginning of time. Poor people like my parents and my in-laws did just fine in having offspring. My parents knew when to start and stop having children as did my inlaws. Poor people are not dumb, they are not criminals (as the Left habitually blames increase in violent crime on poverty), nor are the poor victims. They know about family as a resource for help in raising children (unlike the wealthy elite who hire nannies). The poor also know something about community, neighbors, churches and having networks to share burdens. My parents, though refugees and not having gone beyond grammar school, knew to network in America to raise a family. Most of my neighbors were like family to me though none were blood relatives. My in-laws in BFE Deep South were dirt poor, but my mother in law has 7 siblings, and they were very plugged into church. She never finished high school and yet she raised 3 children, one of whom I married. They are an inspiration as were my parents. If anything the poor know far more than the wealthy elite when it comes to asking friends, neighbors, parishioners, and extended family to help. Money is what elitists value as a requirement to be happy. It is that very perspective that has bankrupted the soul of our country.
RE:”see page 58 of the link you provided,..” Thank you.
“[T]he argument as to financial burden is irrelevant.”
There’s your religious morality. Women have a duty to be brood mares — damn the consequences, the pain, the suffering. You shall blindly obey the Higher Authorities. The more you suffer, the more its proof that you’re being “moral.”
Sam, which part of Estovir’s statement, “My parents knew when to start and stop having children as did my in-laws”, indicated to you that he thinks women are nothing but broodmares, and that he doesn’t care about pain and suffering?”
I would counter that those who want unrestricted abortion do not care about the pain, suffering, terror, and death of the unborn. In fact, one of the most moving testimonies of a pro life activist was told by a woman who used to work at Planned Parenthood. She saw the unborn child struggle during an abortion, and that was it for her. All of a sudden, she had an epiphany that there was another little person involved, who had no say.
Karen, Sam is to me what Natacha is to you: sad stalkers who find purpose in life by pursuing us. I think Sam has pen!s envy.
😉
I have used the following as a guide in my life: “Imitation is the greatest form of flattery”, though I like the original one best by Marcus Aurelius:
You should consider that Imitation is the most acceptable part of Worship, and that the Gods had much rather Mankind should Resemble, than Flatter them.
– from a biography of Marcus Aurelius by Jeremy Collier and André Dacier, titled “Emperor Marcus Antoninus his conversation with himself”
https://archive.org/details/emperormarcusant01marc
“I think Sam has pen!s envy.”
Congratulations. You are doing an admirable job of confirming your ideology’s view of man as low and base.
Since you obviously have an uncontrollable urge to be insulting, can’t you at least try to be clever?
Money is what elitists value as a requirement to be happy. It is that very perspective that has bankrupted the soul of our country.”
*************************
The happiest man I ever knew earned $280.00 every two weeks and got screwed out of his pension by his employer. His funeral procession extended over 20 blocks.
RE:” Dobbs v Jackson” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Sir, as a woman, an independent voter, a lawyer and a person who believes that abortion should be available albeit very limited, ie.15 weeks or less, rape, incest, physical heath etc. (which is very much aligned with 72 pus percent of this country and the world) all your points are purely political and have nothing to do with constitutional interpretation which is what was addressed in the opinion. RBG even agreed that the Roe court strayed when it came up with the original decision trimester rule. That deviation from the point raised and trimester rule which was not even briefed in Roe has been the subject of political divide for 50 years. While I would have preferred an approach akin to that of Roberts’s approach, the limitations as to time and access which appropriately belong to the political process are now returned to that process in each state. The people now in each state can now exercise that power. Either by the general vote or via their state constitution. Frankly each state can find a state right to access via state constitution or statute. I do not believe for one moment that the Justices turned their backs on anything. They were asked a legal question and answered it.
I focused on judicial voting patterns and the structure and function of the court in graduate school prior to going onto law school. Your post reflects a very misleading, uninformed and borderline childish understanding of the function of the court. They are not a super-legislative branch of the federal government (senate and house). Nor can they invade that which is reserved to the states even if they personally disagree. They decide legal disputes before them with precedent guiding them but not limiting them in each factual and legal decision. When the decision based on unique facts is different than before or when the reasoning behind the so called earlier precedent is no longer workable, the court rightly sets forth a new paradigm which answers the older question (ie precedent) but is expansive to now answer the current question and even future ones.
Frankly, looking at the divisions in the 6 justices on other issues is illuminating. They do NOT all agree with each other on many legal questions. There is even unanimity with the other justices (minority in Dobbs) or close to that in other legal decisions.
With all due respect, you should take your gripes to your state legislative branch or separately to the electorate of your state.
RE:”Sir, as a woman, an independent voter, a lawyer.” A cogent argument and well crafted which, unfortunately, will fall on the deaf ears of those who continue to maintain that their ox was cruelly gored.
“A cogent argument . . .”
Except for the fact that it’s premised on a backwards view of the purpose of the Constitution.
RE:”Except for the fact that it’s premised on a backwards view of the purpose of the Constitution.” Opinions vary. How would you expect an individual with the C.V. she articulated view the purpose of the Constitution?
“How would you expect an individual with the C.V. she articulated view the purpose of the Constitution?”
Her CV is irrelevant to the validity of her argument.
If higher education did a better job to teaching political philosophy, she might have a proper view or the Constitution (and of the court’s role in applying it).
RE:”If higher education did a better job to teaching political philosophy, she might have a proper view or the Constitution (and of the court’s role in applying it).” She’s an individual with a law degree and post-baccalaureate education prior to that. Are you suggesting that the legal profession re-examine the way it teaches Constitutional Law in that it doesn’t fit your point of view?
“. . . the way it teaches Constitutional Law in that it doesn’t fit your point of view?”
The issue in medicine is not *my* view of what causes disease. The issue is the proper view. Ditto for political philosophy and the Constitution.
When Constitutional “scholars” and trained lawyers sitting on the SC view the Constitution as a “living document” — that’s all the proof one needs to see that there is something amiss in their education.
RE:”The issue in medicine is not *my* view of what causes disease. The issue is the proper view. Ditto for political philosophy and the Constitution.” The issue in medicine as to what cause disease is not ‘the proper view’ it is an etiology established by evidenced base research, using tools such as random clinical trials, and by a history of repetitions and findings yielding the same outcomes leading to a body of knowledge accepted by consensus and therapies which cure, yet always subject to change and revision. Your view is merely a majority of one.
“. . . accepted by consensus . . .”
Or not. See, for example, Vesalius and Pasteur versus the consensus of their times.
Truth in any field is not a function of consensus.
“Your view is merely a majority of one.”
If you feel a need to run with the crowd, you are free to do so. But not that free.
Well said Allie!
Anonymous, if you cannot afford another child, can you smother your newborn and leave him in a dumpster?
The average cost of raising a human being is immaterial to whether it is right or wrong to kill that person.
Margaret Sanger conceived of Planned Parenthood as a means to rid the country of “undesirables” like the poor, blacks, and the disabled. PP still have the highest density in black communities and heavily market. They have killed more black babies than any other demographic, despite blacks being a minority. This raises ethical concerns. It is so pervasive that in some areas, men are unconcerned with prophylactics, and STDs are higher than average. This is in spite of the fact that there is no cost for birth control, and you can get free condoms in all 50 states.
“The average cost of raising a human being is immaterial . . .”
Dictating a family’s budget. How very neighborly of you.
The court has no interest nor responsibility re: the cost of raising a child. The function of SCOTUS is to rule on constitutionality of a law. The US Constitution contains absolutely no specific nor alluded reference to abortion as a legal right. The function of the lower courts is to rule on laws enacted by elected legislators- not to make law from the bench.
The cost aspect you reference is a concern to the voting citizens and the duly elected legislative branch – talk to your state legislators. If they write the laws, the courts will enforce them. You should not want nor ask judges to create law – that is expressly a legislative prerogative.
“The cost aspect you reference is a concern to the” specific individuals who produce and manage that family budget.
The Left wants to collectivize medicine. The Right wants to collectivize a family’s budget. Neither side understands the principle of individualism.
Sam, I wish I knew what you were saying.
“Sam, I wish I knew what you were saying.”
You would — if America had a decent educational system.
Sam, I forgot to sign my name, so I don’t think you intended to say that nor have we ever exchanged bad words.
The quote is: “The Left wants to collectivize medicine. The Right wants to collectivize a family’s budget. Neither side understands the principle of individualism.”
I clearly understand the principle of individualism and living in a social environment where we live under a Constitutional Republic. Your statement was confusing. Your broad brush approach made things even more confusing.
Why is murdering unborn babies so important to some women?
SM: There was nothing personal about my education comment. It was directed at the dismal state of higher education.
“I clearly understand the principle of individualism . . .”
In which case, the shoe doesn’t fit.