Why does Alito claim that Roe was "egregiously wrong from the start?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Regarding Roe’s historical analysis bring incorrect-

Alito pulls almost exclusively from state law at the time, ministers, and a 17th century jurist known for trying witches. States may have had laws on the books, but these were often for pregnancies after quickening. Abortion was quite commonplace and tacitly accepted. It was referred to however as bringing on a woman’s cycle if obstructed.” All women (including ACB) know there’s a long historical record of folk wisdom, midwifery, prevention strategies, and tinctures for ending a pregnancy even if it was not state sanctioned in 1868.

I agree, but just to be clear - it is Alito’s version of abortion history in his draft Dobbs decision overturning Roe which is incorrect - not any historical analysis in Roe itself. Roe is often (wrongly, IMO) criticized as being incorrectly decided but that criticism does not make any accusation that the history cited in Roe is wrong - it is that the legal reasoning is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Fundamentally incorrect reading of the decision. And lets get real. That is not his intent. And that is not who he is. He personally is reactionary and right wing fanatic who is out of touch with reality. Former federal clerk here.

highly doubt you clerked for a federal judge, dp

I think Pp. 62 of the draft Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Decision is pretty clear: "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." I also highlight doubt the poster clerked for a federal judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

I get it, but what’s so wrong in legislating abortion rights? Oh, yeah, you won’t get is through congress or most state legislatures.

Because one doesn't legislate rights. Rights are inherent. Legislation is given.

That is what is so insane about this opinion. It turns the fundamental principle of our democracy, limited grant of power to the State by the people, upside down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Fundamentally incorrect reading of the decision. And lets get real. That is not his intent. And that is not who he is. He personally is reactionary and right wing fanatic who is out of touch with reality. Former federal clerk here.

highly doubt you clerked for a federal judge, dp

I think Pp. 62 of the draft Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Decision is pretty clear: "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." I also highlight doubt the poster clerked for a federal judge.

Bush v Gore said it wasnt precedent and should never be used as such. Twenty years later and MAGA claims it's precedent that says state legislatures can throw out the vote and state courts cannot make rulings on election matters.

That line means absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

I get it, but what’s so wrong in legislating abortion rights? Oh, yeah, you won’t get is through congress or most state legislatures.

Because one doesn't legislate rights. Rights are inherent. Legislation is given.

That is what is so insane about this opinion. It turns the fundamental principle of our democracy, limited grant of power to the State by the people, upside down.

This! The ruling is a massive expansion of government power (at the state level). That is what is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

Ill never understand how strict constructionists just completely forget the 9th Amendement, and last four words of the 10th, exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Fundamentally incorrect reading of the decision. And lets get real. That is not his intent. And that is not who he is. He personally is reactionary and right wing fanatic who is out of touch with reality. Former federal clerk here.

highly doubt you clerked for a federal judge, dp

I think Pp. 62 of the draft Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Decision is pretty clear: "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." I also highlight doubt the poster clerked for a federal judge.

That line is disingenuous the way “this is precedent” is disingenuous. Let me explain: In the law, cases decide particular fact patterns. Dobbs is about abortion and is overturning an abortion case (Roe). Nothing in the record has been argued about other ideas such as marriage rights or gay sex or contraception.

However - the legal reasoning underlying the facts of the case can be used in other cases. Alito’s reasoning in Dobbs is signaling the present majority believes several things - 1) implicit constitutional rights are unfounded 2) whether or not a right has “historical roots” plays a significant role in the existence/non-existence of that right and 3) that “stare decisis” does not prohibit overturning precedents 50 years or younger.

You will see these three lines of reasoning applied to a broad set of rights that conservatives don’t like - and not just marriage, contraception or sex. See how TX is already set to challenge the right of illegal immigrant children to education.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who has paid any attention to Roe over the decades knows that the jurisprudence has been suspect - and that is putting it kindly - nearly from the beginning. I recall none other than RBG - during her confirmation hearing - excoriate Roe as a legal analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has paid any attention to Roe over the decades knows that the jurisprudence has been suspect - and that is putting it kindly - nearly from the beginning. I recall none other than RBG - during her confirmation hearing - excoriate Roe as a legal analysis.

RBG did not say there was no such thing as inherent rights. Shame on you and your prevarications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Fundamentally incorrect reading of the decision. And lets get real. That is not his intent. And that is not who he is. He personally is reactionary and right wing fanatic who is out of touch with reality. Former federal clerk here.

highly doubt you clerked for a federal judge, dp

I think Pp. 62 of the draft Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Decision is pretty clear: "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." I also highlight doubt the poster clerked for a federal judge.

Bush v Gore said it wasnt precedent and should never be used as such. Twenty years later and MAGA claims it's precedent that says state legislatures can throw out the vote and state courts cannot make rulings on election matters.

That line means absolutely nothing.

We call it “obiter dicta”. And believe me, they will absolutely trash those precedents the second it becomes politically expedient because they rely on the same reasoning. Don’t trust fascists when they say they’re not coming for you. They absolutely are. They just want your help getting there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

I get it, but what’s so wrong in legislating abortion rights? Oh, yeah, you won’t get is through congress or most state legislatures.

Because one doesn't legislate rights. Rights are inherent. Legislation is given.

That is what is so insane about this opinion. It turns the fundamental principle of our democracy, limited grant of power to the State by the people, upside down.

Loose language being used here on both sides. Rights can be natural or statutory in nature. You can indeed legislate rights, such as the right to vote. Just because a right is natural doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon. The path to recognize and protect natural rights is certainly through the legislature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

I get it, but what’s so wrong in legislating abortion rights? Oh, yeah, you won’t get is through congress or most state legislatures.

Because one doesn't legislate rights. Rights are inherent. Legislation is given.

That is what is so insane about this opinion. It turns the fundamental principle of our democracy, limited grant of power to the State by the people, upside down.

Loose language being used here on both sides. Rights can be natural or statutory in nature. You can indeed legislate rights, such as the right to vote. Just because a right is natural doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon. The path to recognize and protect natural rights is certainly through the legislature.

That's some rich prevarication. Rights cannot be legislated. Legislation is inherently temporary while rights are permanent. Rights can be regulated though which is what you are trying to conflate. The draft opinion does not expand permissable regulation, that is Roberts' position, it eliminates rights. Benefits given by the government are not rights, they are privileges. Privileges can be taken away while rights cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

I get it, but what’s so wrong in legislating abortion rights? Oh, yeah, you won’t get is through congress or most state legislatures.

Because one doesn't legislate rights. Rights are inherent. Legislation is given.

That is what is so insane about this opinion. It turns the fundamental principle of our democracy, limited grant of power to the State by the people, upside down.

Loose language being used here on both sides. Rights can be natural or statutory in nature. You can indeed legislate rights, such as the right to vote. Just because a right is natural doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon. The path to recognize and protect natural rights is certainly through the legislature.

That's some rich prevarication. Rights cannot be legislated. Legislation is inherently temporary while rights are permanent. Rights can be regulated though which is what you are trying to conflate. The draft opinion does not expand permissable regulation, that is Roberts' position, it eliminates rights. Benefits given by the government are not rights, they are privileges. Privileges can be taken away while rights cannot.

Pp here. We can't have a productive conversation if we can't even agree on the basic legal definition of a right and how it is treated in our system of government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if this should be merged into one of the other threads, but I am, as a non-lawyer, looking for an explanation of the legal underpinnings of the objections to Roe. I have heard over the last few days that even some liberal law professors admit, while favoring the outcome, that the legal reasoning behind Roe was shaky and the law was always therefore in jeopardy. Can someone explain the actual legal objections to Roe v. Wade?

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the brief. My takeaways- abortion rights are based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Alito doesn’t touch the Ninth at all. He deals with the Fourteenth by arguing that in 1860s, states did not allow abortion (most after quickening, some prior) so the Fourteenth cannot be used to argue that reproductive rights have any basis under the Equal protection clause. He quotes frequently from an English jurist who oversaw English witch trials in the 1700s and was known to be deeply misogynistic.

In addition to reproductive freedom, he goes on to cite other rights that he argues are not historically relevant to the 14th: freedom to marry someone of your choosing, freedom to choose contraception, freedom from involuntary surgery or sterilization, contraception. Basically arguing that if you are a woman or gay or disabled, the rights we ascribe to the 14th don’t really apply to you because it didn’t occur in 1860. Which is why this is such a radical decision.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that a 5-4 decision will change just the one aspect of the law, but the language of the brief is what gets used as citation and support for future cases. SCOTUS relies on briefs of one case to build the argument for the next case. Alito questions why the constitutional rights of the fetus should depend on geography (part of the viability argument). It’s the basis of a future SCOTUS ruling over the constitutionality of a nationwide ban.

I am a lawyer who clerked for a federal appellate judge. This is not entirely correct. Roe's historical analysis was incorrect and the difference between Roe and the cases dealing with marriage (e.g. anti-miscegenation cases like Loving v. Virginia) is that Roe dealt with the "potential of life." Alito's opinion is quite clear these marriage cases have nothing to do with potential life.

Can you provide some more detail/citation about Roe’s historical analysis being incorrect?

Also, FWIW, I think Alito (and his majority) is being very disingenuous when saying Dobbs overturning Roe would be limited because it is factually distinguished by life. In fact, pro-life people believe that “life” begins at fertilization, which can be a couple of days before implantation in the uterus. This conception of the beginning of life could result in outlawing all hormonal and IUD forms of birth control because the pro-life people describe them as causing the abortion of a fertilized egg (hormonal are the most effective forms) and all post-intercourse forms of birth control (Plan B and Ella). The “life” concept means that states could completely ban abortion without any exceptions not even for the life of the mother. It means that states could regulate and criminalize pregnant women’s behavior in all kinds of ways in order to protect the “life” she carries. Practically speaking, because early pregnancy is not easily distinguishable such regulation would probs affect non-pregnant women as well.

Also, it is very clear that Alito is laying groundwork for a future Lochner-style realignment in SCOTUS case law in order to invalidate the whole line of cases stemming from the 14th amendment or claiming “implicit rights” (the marriage and contraception cases). It has long been the Republican/strict constructionist view that the Constitution only protects what it explicitly mentions and any rights not explicitly mentioned need to be legislated by the state or Congress or need to have a constitutional amendment. In this view construction of the meaning of the Constitution is only possible within the context of what the Founders believed at the time of drafting. This is why Alito is using history to justify his decision (distorted and inaccurate as that history is).

If you believed “Roe is precedent” meant Roe would not be overruled, then OK - yeah - you can choose to believe Dobbs is only about “life” and won’t affect these other cases.

I get it, but what’s so wrong in legislating abortion rights? Oh, yeah, you won’t get is through congress or most state legislatures.

Because one doesn't legislate rights. Rights are inherent. Legislation is given.

That is what is so insane about this opinion. It turns the fundamental principle of our democracy, limited grant of power to the State by the people, upside down.

Loose language being used here on both sides. Rights can be natural or statutory in nature. You can indeed legislate rights, such as the right to vote. Just because a right is natural doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon. The path to recognize and protect natural rights is certainly through the legislature.

That's some rich prevarication. Rights cannot be legislated. Legislation is inherently temporary while rights are permanent. Rights can be regulated though which is what you are trying to conflate. The draft opinion does not expand permissable regulation, that is Roberts' position, it eliminates rights. Benefits given by the government are not rights, they are privileges. Privileges can be taken away while rights cannot.

Pp here. We can't have a productive conversation if we can't even agree on the basic legal definition of a right and how it is treated in our system of government.

There's literally centuries of philosophy defining the term. There's also etymology backing it up. It derives from "truth".l

Legislation is inherently malleable and temporary. Something granted by legislation cannot be a right. That the right (ha) wants to play prevaricating word games to obfuscate how big a philosphical and legal change this draft ruling is disappointing to say the least. You are right (ha) when one side intentionally lies about the basic meaning of simple words for short term political gain we are in trouble.

[Anonymous]

"... It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect—that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few." - Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man"