Catholic Justices Rule Shamefully….Again

Catholic Justices Rule Shamefully….Again June 12, 2008

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus, the right to challenge their indefinite detention in federal court. Remember the context: more than half of the men imprisoned here are not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. The majority were captured by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.

This is a victory for human rights and human dignity. The detainees can now force the government to present evidence against them– evidence that in all likelihood is not there for many if not most. But not in the eyes of four Catholic justices– Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. That’s right, they dissented again.

Here’s what Roberts had to say: “I believe the system the political branches constructed adequately protects any constitutional rights aliens captured abroad and detained as enemy combatants may enjoy.” Nice, chief. These “aliens” are human beings created in the image and likeness of God with the same rights as you. Rights under the natural law are not contingent on what passport you hold. Like Roe v. Wade, this is a shocking instance of a Hobbesian social contractarian approach to law, whereby “aliens” are simply excluded from the remit of the contract.

Scalia, who is already on record defending the intrinsically evil act of torture, is even worse: “America is at war with radical Islamists…[the decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” For Scalia, its even simpler. It’s all about consequentialism– let the end justify the means so we can do what it takes to keep America safe. Even if it means locking people up in a military camp outside of the US and throwing away the key.

So the next time people talk about appointing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade.. I say be careful what you wish for.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chase

    One of the closest-kept secrets of the Bush administration is that Roberts and Alito were never appointed to overturn Roe but instead to grossly expand the power of the executive. Roberts’ nomination was presented merely a week after his opinion in the Hamdan case affirming military tribunals when he was on the DC Circuit. Alito has a similar record connecting him with expanded versions of executive power, not a defense of the natural law.

  • Great “Catholic” appointments, there.

  • Magdalena

    Scalia perhaps is a little biased by the fact that one of his (nine!) children is a very fine military officer, a graduate of West Point, who has seen combat in Iraq. I believe that in the past Justice Scalia has said in reference to detainees that “I had a son on that battlefield, they were shooting at my son.” Or words to that effect. Understandable that he wouldn’t be in a kindly mood toward the inmates of Gitmo, but recusal would probably have been a good choice.

  • jh

    Hmmm I think people are missing some major points here. Also to be honest as I told my firends on the right today before they went all hog wild criticizing the OPinion to actually read it. It is not in ancient Greek

    A few thoughts. Thought the newspapers and the medai will no doubt try to portray this as just an Executive Branch Bush is defeated issue that is not clearly the case here. Unlike previous cases regarding enemy prisoners that dealt only with the power of the executive branch this now takes on the power of Congress.

    I highly suspect that after that act is digested that both Democrats and Republicans are going to be a tad alarmed in Congress. Of course no one is thinking what Congress reaction might be which is curious. THey do have some options here.

    That being said the Dissents by ROberts and Scalia can not be so easliy written off . Roberts raises a whole much of legitimate questions that are very valid.

    Perhaps the most important is what exactly has been gained by the people at Gitmo. Not much it appears. It just will no doubnt add more time to their detention since we now have for some reason added a District Court into the process. SO now instead of starting a review at the DC Circuit , in which no doubt both sides will appeal, they start out at the lower Court.

    At this point one ask what is the point of this?

    How come I have the feeling that the these “new Procedures” that the SC has now told the lower courts to figure out will look very much like the DTA act that the majority said was inadequate but really did not explain why.

  • jh

    Part of what Roberts says:

    The nature of the habeas remedy the Court instructs
    lower courts to craft on remand, however, is far more
    unsettled than the process Congress provided in the DTA.
    See ante, at 69 (“[O]ur opinion does not address the content
    of the law that governs petitioners’ detention. That is
    a matter yet to be determined”). There is no reason to
    suppose that review according to procedures the Federal
    Judiciary will design, case by case, will proceed any faster
    than the DTA process petitioners disdained.
    On the contrary, the system the Court has launched
    (and directs lower courts to elaborate) promises to take
    longer. The Court assures us that before bringing their
    habeas petitions, detainees must usually complete the
    CSRT process. See ante, at 66. Then they may seek review
    in federal district court. Either success or failure
    there will surely result in an appeal to the D. C. Circuit—
    exactly where judicial review starts under Congress’s
    system. The effect of the Court’s decision is to add additional
    layers of quite possibly redundant review. And
    because nobody knows how these new layers of “habeas”
    review will operate, or what new procedures they will
    require, their contours will undoubtedly be subject to fresh
    bouts of litigation. If the majority were truly concerned
    about delay, it would have required petitioners to use the
    DTA process that has been available to them for 21⁄2 years,
    with its Article III review in the D. C. Circuit. That system
    might well have provided petitioners all the relief to
    which they are entitled long before the Court’s newly
    installed habeas review could hope to do so.

    …….

    The majority’s overreaching is particularly egregious
    given the weakness of its objections to the DTA. Simply
    put, the Court’s opinion fails on its own terms. The majority
    strikes down the statute because it is not an “adequate
    substitute” for habeas review, ante, at 42, but fails to show
    what rights the detainees have that cannot be vindicated
    by the DTA system.

    Hmm How come I have a feeling that the Papers or those concerned about the poor people at Gitmo will be talking about this.

    Not sure how all this advances “Natural Law” but I am open to being persuaded

  • digbydolben

    That Scalia did NOT recuse himself after making the statement quoted above is, as far as I’m concerned, ample evidence of his lack of judicial ethics. He is, in fact, a VERY “politicized” Justice and, obviously, an “activist,” to boot–but a right-wing “activist.”

  • SB

    Alito has a similar record connecting him with expanded versions of executive power, not a defense of the natural law.

    That’s not true at all.

  • jh

    “That Scalia did NOT recuse himself after making the statement quoted above is, as far as I’m concerned, ample evidence of his lack of judicial ethics. He is, in fact, a VERY “politicized” Justice and, obviously, an “activist,” to boot–but a right-wing “activist.”

    Not really. Scalia is saying what he thinks the pratical outcome will be. THis is not hsi legal reasoning that can be read in the opinion

  • Mark DeFrancisis

    I knew– starting with Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District & Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education–that the Alito-Roberts pair could be judicially disastrous, but since then they have been exceeding my worst expectations.

  • Blackadder

    These “aliens” are human beings created in the image and likeness of God with the same rights as you. Rights under the natural law are not contingent on what passport you hold.

    Natural rights are not contingent on what passport you hold. Legal rights often are. If you read the majority opinion, you won’t find any arguments that the detainees have a natural God given right to habeas corpus. Rather, the discussion centers on whether as a matter of positive law, that right applies to the detainees. While the dissent and the majority may differ on the question of whether the right to habeas applies to the detainees, all are in agreement that whether the right applies or not is a matter of positive rather than natural law.

  • What Blackadder said… someone who isn’t an American citizen doesn’t have an automatic claim to what is (merely) a legal right.

  • Mark DeFrancisis

    I hope I do not get rounded up and wrongly imprisoned in another country without habeas corpus, for I would not have automatic claim “to what is( mereley) a legal right, and I suppose some American Catholic conservative lawyers may even advocate against me there, as a friend of the court.

  • Amazing the kinds of things lawyers say, and can justify.

  • jh

    “What Blackadder said… someone who isn’t an American citizen doesn’t have an automatic claim to what is (merely) a legal right.”

    Yes and I think that is what is missed. I really tend to want to be in aggrement with parts of the majority OPinion in this case. But the problems that the Majority Opinion creates and how they got there is givng me major heartburn

    First, of all Kennedy is again a tad annoying with his writing style the and his Huge Grand sweeping statements. Something that has been noted by critics on the left and right. Kennedy’s treatment of past Precedent and indeed common law as the application of the writ to Foreign Nationals in foreign Territories is depressing that reaches a further depressing climax in how he treats the 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager

    However besides that at the end of the day we have a Court striking down something that in its previous Opinions the Court gave guidance on. Scalia is quite clever in pointing this out.

    Where are we at. Roberts so well points out :

    “The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation.”

    His main point here is right on:
    “The critical threshold question in these cases, prior to any inquiry about the writ’s scope, is whether the system the political branches designed protects
    whatever rights the detainees may possess. If so, there is no need for any additional process, whether called“habeas” or something else”

    EXACTLY!!!!

    Calling something Habeas does not magically make it better than what the POlitical BRanches have provided. As I mentioned earlier I have a feeling that the Courts Guidelines that will now be decided by a COurt Full of Bush appointments will look a whole lot like the DTA act.

    I hate to say it but this appears to be naked power grab by the Court here.

    Now what is ironic in all this is future Prisoner rights will be less safe. In fact for the immediate bunch we have that is indeed the case now they are now shoved in a mess that does not even have clear defined rules yet.

    However in the future the Govt will just keep them Abroad. For instance as to alleged terrorists from Iraq they will just keep them where perhaps where Saddam Hussian was kept. The COurt even gives then a substantial avenue in this in the other related Opinion that was decided yesterday but is not getting much media attention. That is the Geren case where the COurt Said the court could grant no Habeas relief . In an opinion by Roberts,the Court first concluded that U.S. courts may entertain habeas petitions brought by U.S. citizens in military custody overseas.

    However!!! the COurt ,rejected the petitioners’ ultimate claim by saying that district courts could not issue the injunctions sought. The traditional remedy for a habeas violation is release. Yet that would not do the petitioners much good here, as to be released by U.S. troops would place the petitioners in danger of being apprehended by Iraqi authorities, producing the precise result they sought to avoid. That is potential detention and trial by the Iraqi government. As said , “Habeas corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them.”

    LOL, so for all the talk of Human Rights , Prisioner Rights, and self congrat High Fives we quite frankly now have a situation to where the rights and protections of these current Prisoners that they have and I predict will be very easily avoided by future Administration as to future Prisioners.

    A whole can of worms has been open here and for what?

  • Blackadder

    Mark,

    If you’re counting on habeas corpus to protect you in your foreign travels to protect you, then the list of countries you will want to visit is going to be quite small. Italy, for example, doesn’t have habeas corpus, nor France, nor Sweden. Ireland has it, but makes an exception for the military, so you’re out of luck there. And if you’re looking for a non-Western country to visit, your only options appear to be India, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

    My advice is that if you are ever wrongly imprisoned in a foreign land, don’t count on habeas corpus to save you. You probably won’t have access to it, and even if you do, the chances that it will actually help you are pretty slim. You’d be much better off calling the American embassy and having them spring you.

  • Mark DeFrancisis

    BA,

    Of course. But you know that was not my overriding point. I hope.

  • Morning’s Minion

    Chase: that is absoluetly right. A strong belief in executive power is what unites Roberts and Alito. Pro-lifers, once again, got taken for a ride.

    How much “legal collateral damage” like this can we take simply to appoint the kinds of judges that may (possibly) overturn Roe? This is yet another dimension in the debate that often gets ignored.

  • Morning’s Minion

    I love it when Scalai talks about judicial activism: this is the man who declared in one of the worst cases of all time (Bush v. Gore), that “the counting of the votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon which he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”

  • jh

    “Chase: that is absoluetly right. A strong belief in executive power is what unites Roberts and Alito. Pro-lifers, once again, got taken for a ride.

    How much “legal collateral damage” like this can we take simply to appoint the kinds of judges that may (possibly) overturn Roe? This is yet another dimension in the debate that often gets ignored.”

    MM

    Again though as to this case the issue is not if the power of the Executive or if the Executive Branch overreached. Unlike previous cases these deals in a major direct way with the Congressional Power

  • Morning’s Minion

    Some of you seem to be veering in an excessively positivist direction. There are rights that are superior and antecedent to all positive law, and one of those rights is to right not be be unjustly imprisoned. That right does not depend on where you are, or the color of your passport. if the positive law says something to the contrary, the the positive law is no law at all.

  • There are rights that are superior and antecedent to all positive law, and one of those rights is to right not be be unjustly imprisoned. That right does not depend on where you are, or the color of your passport. if the positive law says something to the contrary, the the positive law is no law at all.

    Exactly. But it’s useless to tell this to a lawyer.

  • Liam

    MM

    Yes, having been someone who for many years admired Scalia, that dictum of his shredded his credibility. It will, I supsect, be for him what “Three generations of imbeciles is enough” has been for Holmes – a moment revealing the deep crack in the golden bowl of great brilliance.

  • jh

    “That right does not depend on where you are, or the color of your passport. if the positive law says something to the contrary, the the positive law is no law at all.”

    So the DTA violates these fundamental rights? The prisoners rights are now more protected by now being injected to where Federal Judges will be making up the rules?The majority merely replacesa review system designed by the people’s representativeswith a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date.

    The majority opinion expressly declines to decide whether the Tribunal procedures combined with Article III review satisfy due process. That I find breathtaking.

    If the Tribunal procedures meet minimal due process requirements that are outlined in the just decided Hamdi case and if an Article III court is available to ensure that these procedures are followed in future cases there is no need to reach the Suspension Clause question. Prisioners will have received all the process the Constitution could possibly require, whether that process is called “habeas” or anything else.

  • jh

    Liam

    Scalia is referring in most part to what he judges the Districts Courts lack of competence to deal with these situation.

    I would suggest reading the entire Scalia Dissent
    http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf that starts on page 110

  • jh

    “Amazing the kinds of things lawyers say, and can justify.”

    I see something that unites the Right , the Left, and people that proclaim the new kind of politics that proceeds beyond the outdated categories of right and left

    Bashing LAWYERS lol

  • Blackadder

    There are rights that are superior and antecedent to all positive law, and one of those rights is to right not be be unjustly imprisoned.

    Well, of course. A person has the right not to be unjustly anythinged. That’s kind of implied by the meaning of the word unjust. But the question at issue here is not whether the detainees can be unjustly imprisoned, but rather what legal process should govern the determination of whether or not the detainees have, in fact, been unjustly imprisoned. Unless you want to say that people have a natural, God given right to have their imprisonment reviewed by an Article III judge (a rather dubious proposition), the question is going to turn on the positive rather than the natural law.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it. Read the majority opinion. It’s based not on natural law principles, but on positive law.

  • Liam

    JH

    I was referring to MM’s quote from Scalia in December 2000, not from the instant case.

    As for this instant case, I think Dahlia Lithwick’s takedown of the dissents in Slate is quite apt.

  • jh

    “As for this instant case, I think Dahlia Lithwick’s takedown of the dissents in Slate is quite apt.”

    I enjoy her writing even though I disagree with a good bit. SHe does have a ability to make what is happening clear. I will check her out now and see what her two cents were

  • Many things to consider.

    If some other nation invaded the US, took people saying “they were terrorists” but didn’t offer any proof, what would the US say of that nation? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Exactly. That’s one of the issues. It’s not that they are “non-Americans” it is a bigger issue and concern, and many of those international treaties do have an effect even in the US. And if we said “not anymore,” all it means is “Rogue Nation.”

    Second, how do you know they are “not Americans” just because they were taken over-seas? That would require evidence, but of course, to hold them we don’t need it.

    Third, and the greater issue — ok, so it is a thing of “positive law.” So is abortion. Quit complaining. What?! You can say that it goes against fundamental rights? So does this.

  • jh

    Liam,

    I just read Lithwick’s piece and I guess I don’t see it as her finest piece of writing legal wise. It starts out well and then goes downhill fast. She have fun with Scalia Opinion, and of course that is always fun to do, however she does not engage the meat of Roberts concerns.

    LEt me engage this part:
    “Six years of no trials, in the eyes of the dissenters, is more than justifiable in the hopes of dozens more years of no trials. And it’s precisely that sense of time passing without consequence that so infuriates the majority. Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Souter each observe in their opinions today that the passage of so many years while detainees waited and watched was preposterous. This is not some demented Supreme Court prematurely racing into a war zone with morning breath, uncombed hair, and misguided good intentions. This is a deliberative Supreme Court saying that it’s been standing by for six long years. That’s how long it’s been since the Bush administration started doing battle with the federal courts alongside its battle against the enemy. Responding to the dissenters’ fatuous complaint that the majority should have waited to see how the tribunals played out before ruling on their constitutional infirmity, Kennedy observes that, as yet, the game still hasn’t even started, and “the costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody.” As David Barron points out at “Convictions,” the court is saying that if Congress wanted to suspend the right to habeas, it should have done so, clearly and definitively. The court is also saying that six years of detainee victories that—for all the change on the ground at Guantanamo—might as well have been losses are not exactly a ringing endorsement of the American legal system.”

    Now of course she is engaging what SOuter said here. However why does one get the feeling that people are irked at the Bush Adminstration and the way they handled the matter in front of the Court. One can debate if the Bush handled it right or not. But it seems the Court Majority remdy to get their frustration out could have been done without establishing a entire new and as she says confusing Precedent

    What she leaves out is the obvious. That the COurts actions will cause further delay. The people in front of the COurt have not availed themselves of the Legal system and rights that the DTA act provided. Now those that are detained will further delayed as Federal Judges Procedural and Evidentary rules are appealed by both parties. Why Mrs Lithwick’s piece fails to engage this obvious fact is beyond me.

    Perhaps Mrs Lithwick in a future piece will talk about why the Court did not just demand the parts of the DTA act be fixed and give guidance to Congress what to do. However they did not do that. In fact they give no guidance to the Federal Lower COurts what to do next

  • Mark deFrancisis

    “LOL lawyer bashing”.

    Now I swear to God that this came from my best female friend whose husband is a lawyer.

    Q: Who does a Catholic lawyer engage in NFP?

    A: He uses his personality. 🙂

  • jh

    LOL now that is funny

  • digbydolben

    However in the future the Govt will just keep them Abroad. For instance as to alleged terrorists from Iraq they will just keep them where perhaps where Saddam Hussian was kept. The COurt even gives then a substantial avenue in this in the other related Opinion that was decided yesterday but is not getting much media attention.

    I think that Henry Karlson just made this point, Mr. JH, but just let me ask it of you more directly: Isn’t this anothr very good reason why Americans have no business occupying another people’s country? Doesn’t this kind of corruption of our republican system by what the damned “neo-conservatives” would call the “onerous responsibilities of empire” argue STRONGLY that there is an inherent contradiction between phenomena like colonialism and habeas corpus?

  • A judge’s duty is to interpret the positive law, not to rule in a way that comports with what he deems to be natural law or his own personal policy preferences.

    If the positive law or government does not recognize the natural law (as is the case with abortion), then our duty as citizens is to fight in the electoral and legislative arenas to see that such injustice is remedied/addressed. The answer to lawlessness is not lawlessness. Without the rule of law, none of our natural-law rights are secure.

  • So, feddie, no more attempts to get judges to over-rule the rule of law in the US (abortion) but only work for it through other means?

  • SB

    Reversing Roe would not be “overruling the rule of law,” whatever that is supposed to mean. It would be the restoration of the rule of law in that particular area, given that the Constitution properly read does not protect abortion in the first place.

  • Henry-

    I apologize for being less than clear. My reference to the electoral arena was meant to address that very thing (i.e., electing a president who will appoint originalist justices/judges).

  • So it is about judges who will over-rule the law of the land and create according to their own interpretations of a so-called “originalist” interpretation.

    Like many sophists, some people want it both ways.. judges can’t change things it’s the law, but my interpretation of the law is the real law and can get rid of the law if I say so.

  • jh

    Digby

    I t wuld appear that the fact the UNited States in the future might have to occupy some country is a realistic possibility. I don’t think that fact will gfo away in the years to come if we are attacked and we must go after the terrorist groups that did not attack. For instance I am not hearing a uproar about getting out of Afghansitan. Needless to say with delvelopment the last few months we might be engaging what to do with those people we capture very very soon. Shall we just leave them there or not will be the question

    My point is until this new creature is classified , since there is a reluctance to put them under POW status, then I think the system we have or at least had was workable. It has been replaced by something that is indeed up in the air and is one of my main objections to these ruling

  • Henry-

    Roe isn’t based on any real interpretation of constitutional law. It was nothing less than rule by judicial fiat. Most intellectually honest liberal conlaw types will concede this point when pressed. It’s made up law, plain and simple.

  • StBuck

    So it is about judges who will over-rule the law of the land and create according to their own interpretations of a so-called “originalist” interpretation.

    It’s hard to tell what you mean by this, but Roe is the “law of the land” only in the sense that the Supreme Court once said it; the Supreme Court is always able to say otherwise, and indeed, it should say otherwise if it wishes to be consistent with what the Constitution actually says. That in no way contradicts the notion — expressed by feddie and blackadder here — that in a case like the military tribunals case, the Supreme Court should confine itself to a proper interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, the argument is precisely the same in both cases: Whether here or in Roe, the Supreme Court’s role in the American system is to interpret the Constitution as written, not to invent new rights (whether the right to abortion or the right of foreign combatants to obtain habeas corpus review in civilian courts).

    I’m not saying that the Supreme Court was wrong or right in the military tribunals case, to be sure; I’d have to do much more study even to venture an opinion. I’m just saying that conceptually, the arguments seem the same both in this case and in Roe: On one side you have liberal Justices saying that an expansive interpretation of the due process clause requires [greater freedom for abortion, greater access to habeas], and on the other side you have conservative Justices saying that the due process clause doesn’t actually require those things.

    Like many sophists, some people want it both ways.. judges can’t change things it’s the law, but my interpretation of the law is the real law and can get rid of the law if I say so.

    I don’t think anyone can come up with a response to this unless you formulate it first as a coherent and grammatical sentence.

  • Some of you are conflating means and ends. if you want to abolish Roe, it should not be because of some constitutional nicety, but because it gives license to do something that is wrong. In other words, it is a means, not an and in itself.

    Likewise, it is wholly inadequate to judge this moral issue within the narrow confines of a positivist constitution. It does not give judges license to violate the moral law.

  • JohnB

    “One of the closest-kept secrets of the Bush administration is that Roberts and Alito were never appointed to overturn Roe but instead to grossly expand the power of the executive.”

    It’s fortunate that we have individuals privy to such secrets among the VN commentators. Our very own Scott Mclellan, minus the book deal. Do you have any other secrets (or unsubstantiated accusations, rather) you would like to share?

  • JohnB

    “Some of you are conflating means and ends. if you want to abolish Roe, it should not be because of some constitutional nicety, but because it gives license to do something..”

    I think this indicates rather that there is a disagreement among the commentators about the proper role of the judiciary. There is often a tension between a judge’s personal preferences and the law.

    The majority in Roe resolved that tension in favor of their own preferences, and basically ignored the text of the document they were purportedly interpreting. The judicial philosophy you suggest, MM, justifies Roe. A more modest view of the role of the judiciary emphasizing the role of the judge as an interpreter of laws would not lead to Roe. I am not familar enough with the relevant jurisdictional questions to comment on the facts in this decision, but I submit to you that neither are 95% of the other commentators on this post.

  • Chase

    My accusation, besides being supported by comments in books like Jeffrey Toobin’s The Nine is also substantially supported by what has happened since their appointments: please point out any case which the “Roberts court” took and then decided which substantially altered Roe. (If you choose the partial birth ban case, reflect on the fact that the opinion was written by Kennedy and how it might have been different if Roberts did it himself).

  • JohnB

    Chase, I was just pointing out that your comment was an accusation, nothing more nothing less. Dahlia made the same argument during the confirmation hearings, and Toobin naturally is predisposed to favor this theory also. It’s not a ‘secret’ however, simply an accusation made by political opponents.

    As to Roe, I am not sure what your point is. I never suggested that the Court has done anything to modify Roe. Carhart is a very minor limitation. As long as Kennedy is the swing vote, it would be counter-productive to take an abortion case as there are not enough votes to modify Roe. That, by the way, is the argument for conservative justices this election; we do not know for certain that Roberts and Alito would overturn Roe or how they would modify it, but with one more appointment we would find out. MM may wax hysterical about whether the detainees may appeal military tribunals to only the DC circuit court (as they could prior to the recent ruling) or multiple courts (as they now can), but it seems to me that the next four years represent the best chance to modify Roe since the early 90’s.

  • Chase

    The promise of a best chance aside, I’m merely suggesting that anyone who uses abortion as a litmus test on justices has gotten a pretty raw deal.

  • Pingback: Consequentialism on the Supreme Court « Vox Nova()

  • Pingback: Consequentialism on the Supreme Court | Austin Dwi Lawyer()