And yet they managed to come to a decision in the absence of additional legislation, and with no “wedding cake rights” spelled out in the Constitution.
Is that important? ISTM that the important detail is that they recognize fundamental rights not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution.
Look, let’s bring this back to where it started. Dobbs cannot be deemed a proper ruling simply because the Constitution says jack-shit about abortion, as you suggested. If it was a proper ruling (I don’t think it was), then it needs more than “Well, the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion” as support. Eliminating rights that have previously been established need more than that.
I think it is. For example, the bit where your cite mentions the unenumerated right to travel links to an explanation that Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” It’s as if something more than a gesture in the direction of the Ninth was needed; something in the text of another Amendment needed to be pointed at.
Roe v Wade did so as well, citing a right to privacy they thought was supported by the 14th, as I recall. Griswold is another example, and one I’d say has similarities to Roe. Where in the Constitution is the “married couples have the right to use contraception” section? And yet they still managed to find implied constitutional support.
And, per Dobbs: “For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). … We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. … Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. … The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”
Yes, that’s SCOTUS supporting their decision with logic that defies a couple of centuries of jurisprudence. It’s shitty logic. And you citing it is circular if you’re using the decision itself as proof that the decision’s logic is sound. Whatever the fascists on SCOTUS assert, there is no need, and never has been, that a right be mentioned in the Constitution to deserve protection. That is simply false.
Your citing it is equivalent to someone asserting the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and the evidence that they provide is, “The Bible says so.”
But I’m done here. I don’t think there’s anything I can add, and you seem pretty firmly attached to the notion that Dobbs couldn’t possible be wrongly decided because the Constitution makes no mention of abortion. How do we know that’s sound? It says so, right there in Dobbs.
I mentioned it in reply — and only in reply — to you stating that “Roe v Wade did so as well, citing a right to privacy they thought was supported by the 14th, as I recall.” It says so right there in Roe, or something.
These things are fatal errors that we’re seeing because the political motivation, as we’ve seen, Harris, to rush these trials against President Trump, to make sure they’re done before the November election, and to cover it up by saying no one is above the law.
You really can’t fake being smart.
No, but you can try, and if you’re dumb enough, and subject to a Dunning-Kruger level of self-awareness, you believe you’re getting away with it. Examples include Trump, Habba, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Pillow Guy, and pretty much the entire stable of Trump sycophants.
They seem to do a fine job fooling the rubes. And really, that’s all the counts. You can certainly fool those people all the time.
If I were the president or dean of the law school which awarded her a j.d., I’d seriously be finding out if the school can rescind it. Every day that goes by, she’s getting worse and worse at law.
It should come as little surprise, but Widener University Commonwealth Law is not an especially highly regarded school.
That said, lots of people can squeak out a degree and still have no friggin’ clue what they’re doing. I’m not sure her boss is exactly a shining example of the high ethical standards and business acumen that the Wharton School or UPenn like to associate with themselves.
Life would be a lot easier if all the scumbags had degrees from the Grifters School at the University of Scammers.
No, Trump University got shut down.
How dare you malign Widener University Commonwealth law, U.S. News & World Report ranks it as tied for 165th out of 196 law schools… there are 30 lower ranked law schools than that! Plus, we know those rankings are bunk – that law school could be as high as 150th.
It’s unclear how much Habba had to pay to make the lawsuit go away.
https://newrepublic.com/post/185917/alina-habba-settles-trump-hush-money-deal-bedminster
Everything is going according to plan:
Makes sense. She has acted as his enforcer before, breaking the law on his behalf. She may be incompetent as a lawyer, but she has shown loyalty to him, and that’s all he really gives a shit about.
Still upset she wasn’t disbarred.
New Jersey of course being a place that a bunch of trumply criming has taken place and is presumably still ongoing.