The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in the most consequential abortion case since Roe v. Wade. The case, Dobbs, presents the court with the opportunity to overturn Roe and correct one of greatest acts of judicial arrogance in history. /1
The conventional wisdom is that overturning Roe will cause massive societal upheaval and indelibly damage the Court’s legitimacy. In fact, the reality is just the opposite. /2
A notable justification articulated by the Casey Court for upholding Roe was its concern for the court’s own legitimacy. But Casey didn’t bolster the court’s legitimacy; it perpetuated the divisions it said it was putting to rest. /3
It is striking that, nearly 30 years later, the Court finds itself under unprecedented attack.
Today, the Court is in the crosshairs. The irony is that it finds itself there because of decisions like Roe and Casey, not in spite of them. /4
The Court’s illegitimate exercise of raw judicial power in Roe usurped Americans’ ability to determine whether and how to regulate abortion. /5
Roe has only inflicted serious damage upon our political order and social fabric. And the issue of abortion, as a policy matter, is as contentious as ever. /6
Roe inflicted serious damage upon our political order and social fabric. And the issue of abortion, as a policy matter, is as contentious as ever. /6
For the sake of its own integrity, the Court can recognize that the best course is to go back to what the Constitution itself says and overturn Roe, and let the matter of determining abortion policy to the American people. /7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An amicus brief of liberal legal historians submitted in Dobbs is shoddy revisionist history. Its omissions and contortions deny the obvious: that Roe was illegitimate, polarized the country, and harmed the judiciary. /1 supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1…
Sure, there were contentious judicial nominations before Roe. But the brief’s conclusion, “Roe Did Not Poison the Process of Judicial Nominations,” is laughable. Just ask Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. /2
No other nomination over the last century saw as much vilification, and no post-Roe Democratic nominee got anything approaching that abuse. Even Alito and Gorsuch suffered personal abuse and attempted filibusters, while Democrat nominees were treated with kid gloves. /3
The legendary Judge Henry Friendly nearly had the opportunity to write an opinion in an abortion case that came before him in 1970, three years before Roe. The case was mooted by the NY State Legislature but Judge Friendly's draft opinion was prescient. /1 nationalreview.com/2021/11/some-f…
The contents of Judge Friendly's draft opinion were published 35 years later by his former law clerk, Judge Raymond Randolph of the D.C. Circuit. (Interestingly, Randolph clerked for Friendly ten years before Chief Justice John Roberts did). /2
Judge Friendly’s draft opinion “not only recognized the primacy of the democratic process in deciding an issue about which the Constitution is silent but also predicted that it would discredit the Court if it went the other direction on this issue.” /3
Today in Brnovich v. DNC, Justice Alito wrote for a 6-3 Court that Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and ban on ballot harvesting are consistent with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. /1
Section 2’s purpose of eliminating racial discrimination is extremely important, but the Arizona measures are not discriminatory. Both provisions help make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. /2
Arizona’s provisions are not outliers. Over two dozen states—including Connecticut, Delaware and Illinois—have measures like Arizona’s that limit voting outside a voter’s own precinct. /3
Today's ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta is a huge victory for anonymous speech and donor privacy, which have played an essential role in our nation’s history from its inception. /1
The decision reaffirms the Court's landmark decision in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which held that the “freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of . . . freedom of speech." /2
The case is a strong rebuke of states like California, whose forced disclosure laws are now facially invalid. A major victory for those—on both the right and the left—who sought protection from abusive governments that would bully or intimidate them for their views. /3
Today’s *unanimous* judgement in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is yet another resounding victory for religious liberty, and against religious discrimination. /1
This Court is establishing itself as the most protective of religious liberty in history. /2
This follows a string of wins in religious liberty cases, including the COVID church cases, Little Sisters (2020), Espinoza (2020), Our Lady of Guadalupe School (2020), the Bladensberg “Peace Cross” (2019), Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018), Trinity Lutheran (2017), to name a few. /3
Obamacare has been bad law from the beginning (and Chief Justice Roberts’ 2012 opinion was lawless and indefensible) but conservatives always knew that this wasn't a strong case. /1
As Justice Thomas put it today, “The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the harm they suffered is traceable to unlawful conduct. Although this Court has erred twice before in cases involving the Affordable Care Act, it does not err today.” /2
Yet that didn't stop Democrats from deceiving Americans and fear-mongering last fall, saying Justice Barrett was only nominated because she would strike down the ACA. That was crazy talk, and the Left knew it. /3