BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting:<\/p>\n
Rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes today for the first time in history, affects all who have relied on our constitutional system of government and its structure of individual liberties protected from state oversight.<\/p>\n
\u03a9\u00a0\u03a9\u00a0\u03a9<\/p>\n
So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century<\/span> are insecure. Either the mass of the majority\u2019s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.<\/p>\n
One piece of evidence on that score seems especially salient: The majority\u2019s cavalier approach to overturning this Court\u2019s precedents. Stare decisis<\/em> is the Latin phrase for a foundation stone of the rule of law: that things decided should stay decided unless there is a very good reason for change. It is a doctrine of judicial modesty and humility. Those qualities are not evident in today\u2019s opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN\u2019S HEALTH ORGANIZATION<\/a>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting: Rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes today for the first time in history, affects all who have relied on our constitutional system … Weiterlesen