During a 2006 debate with the President of the ACLU, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that unelected judges on the Supreme Court have no business deciding cases based on public morality or public policy—those decisions, he said, should be left to lawmakers or the public. As for “pro-abortion judges,” Scalia warned: “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.” Once again Justice Scalia has been proven prescient.
If the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Mississippi had expressed agreement with Justice Rehnquist’s 1,500 word dissent in Roe v. Wade, or simply put us back to pre-Roe days, the laws relating to a woman’s “right to choose” would have been manageable; however, the Dobbs decision written by Justice Alito not only overrules Roe and the consequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it does so in a 98-page “in your face” denigration of physicians whom he calls “abortionists” and those health care professionals who claim a paramount interest in a woman’s health. Dobbs also establishes the basis for overruling important decisions which protect some rights we all have come to consider as fundamental to our notion of liberty and freedom.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
