Content about scotus

The legal reality is that Roe v. Wade never rested on the soundest of constitutional grounds. The Court didn't have the votes for an equal protection footing, so the majority opinion relied on a newfound fundamental right to privacy. That is, and always was, the Achilles heel of the decision. The late Justice Ginsburg criticized the decision, and questioned its long term viability, for this very reason.

At some point, you expect stare decisis to strengthen all but the shakiest of legal grounds for a Supreme Court decision, but it just wasn't there this time.

So the optimistic view following yesterday's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which I'm choosing to take, is that we've been given an opportunity to present the issue in a way that lets a future Supreme Court base a rights-affirming decision on a more stable legal footing.

tags: law scotus

postposted by matt in Saturday, June 25, 2022

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion (apnews.com)

U.S. history is staked with milestones relating to the attainment of rights–freedom, suffrage, privacy, equality. I've always viewed our system as a process that moves toward more rights for its people. Progress is achieved in fits and starts, of course, but our history has always moved in the same direction–more rights for the people.

That all changed today when the Supreme Court actually eliminated an existing, federally protected right of all women of the United States by overturning its decision in Roe v. Wade.

The country I know and love is suddenly a country that takes rights away from its people.

That's backwards. And disgusting. And horrific.

tags: law scotus

posted by matt in Friday, June 24, 2022

Supreme Court rejects Republican attack on Biden victory (apnews.com)

No coup for you, Donny.

The dissent is actually interesting: the point made by Alito and Thomas is an extremely narrow one - they feel the Court must accept a filing on cases in which it has original jurisdiction (state v. state). In a bit of a slap, they explain that they would not grant any other relief (the injunction sought).

tags: politics election trump scotus

posted by matt in Friday, December 11, 2020