Search
Understanding the Dobbs Decision of the Supreme Court, Part 3
-
August 13, 2022
Part III
Confusion and misinformation surrounds the recent decision of the Supreme Court that overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. This week our Respect Life group has provided the third in a series of five points that can help make the ruling understandable. These points are gleaned from www.SupremeCourtVictory.com of Priests for Life.
- In deciding cases, the Supreme Court considers how it has ruled in the past on similar issues, and has a presumption of sticking with past decisions, for the sake of the predictability and consistency of decisions. This is called “stare decisis.” But the Court affirms that this is not absolute or an inexorable command. The Court has reversed itself many times when it realized a past decision was wrong, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education which, after 58 years, reversed a decision that legalized segregation.
- The Dobbs case cited five reasons for overruling Roe and Casey:
- The decision that abortion was a “Constitutional right” was an egregious error on a deeply consequential matter, which it removed from the democratic lawmaking process.
- The reasoning behind Roe and Casey was exceptionally weak. Both decisions drew lines about when and in what way abortion could be regulated, but gave no reason why the Constitution would require the lines to be drawn. The policy they set was more legislative than judicial activity. And Casey, while upholding Roe, also modified it significantly, changed its reasoning, and overruled two other abortion cases that relied on it.
- The standards that the Roe and Casey decisions gave the courts for evaluating the constitutionality of abortion laws were so vague, inconsistent, and undefined that they were unworkable. They did not provide clear and predictable guidance needed for the courts.
- The decision that abortion was a “Constitutional right” was an egregious error on a deeply consequential matter, which it removed from the democratic lawmaking process.
- In deciding cases, the Supreme Court considers how it has ruled in the past on similar issues, and has a presumption of sticking with past decisions, for the sake of the predictability and consistency of decisions. This is called “stare decisis.” But the Court affirms that this is not absolute or an inexorable command. The Court has reversed itself many times when it realized a past decision was wrong, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education which, after 58 years, reversed a decision that legalized segregation.