Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned. The rule of law might have been; The Washington Post, Erwin Chemerinsky Dean at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky; “The majority was mute on the right to privacy, abandoned its constitutional role and held, indirectly but unmistakably, that the Constitution is a mere inconvenience that states are at liberty to violate if they can come up with cunning statutory language. Even though Roe is still the law, the women in Texas no longer have the right that it protects. Such has no resemblance to the rule of law.” SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts: Rather than waiting to adjudicate the Texas law on its merits, members of the Whole Woman’s Health majority tossed out; “very
Topics:
run75441 considers the following as important: abortion, Hot Topics, law, politics, Roe V Wade
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Biden finalizes rule opening up Obamacare to DACA recipients
Eric Kramer writes Ukraine, Israel, and Biden: lessons and questions
NewDealdemocrat writes April jobs report: counterbalancing March’s blockbuster good report, the first significant “ding” to the soft-landing scenario in months
Bill Haskell writes A Teaser for you . . . Trickle Down Economics
Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned. The rule of law might have been; The Washington Post, Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky; “The majority was mute on the right to privacy, abandoned its constitutional role and held, indirectly but unmistakably, that the Constitution is a mere inconvenience that states are at liberty to violate if they can come up with cunning statutory language.
Even though Roe is still the law, the women in Texas no longer have the right that it protects. Such has no resemblance to the rule of law.”
SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts: Rather than waiting to adjudicate the Texas law on its merits, members of the Whole Woman’s Health majority tossed out; “very old and very important legal wine: The ability to ask the Judiciary to protect an individual from the invasion of a constitutional right.”
Hiding behind an unsigned opinion and burying their heads in the sand as Justice Sotomayer termed it, the five members of the majority, over the “signed” dissents of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three other justices, declined to carry out their central functions of protecting constitutional rights and uphold the rule of law.