By Neil Siegel at the Balkanization blog.
I argue that Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) was an ugly, lawless judicial performance by the U.S. Supreme Court. ...
Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion articulates a gratuitously sweeping rationale for ending any constitutional protection for abortion and then repeatedly runs away from this rationale in asserting that other substantive due process rights are not in jeopardy even without considering stare decisis--even though protection from involuntary sterilization, contraception, inter-racial marriage, same-sex marriage, and same-sex intimacy are no more deeply rooted in nineteenth-century history and tradition than abortion. The opinion is thus utterly unprincipled at its analytic core and lacks the virtue of judicial candor.
Comments