Sprinkles from the Left
⏰🚀 Ready, Set, Go: These opinions take 1.59 minutes to read.
“America now faces the very real possibility that in just a few months’ time, the Supreme Court will interpret the U.S. Constitution to no longer protect the right to abortion… If the Court does overturn Roe, much of the American legal landscape—and with it, the lived experiences of millions—could change overnight…
Navigating a post-Roe country will be anything but simple. Perhaps the only certainty to expect is that a post-Roe country will be one of inequity. A little fewer than half of U.S. states, mostly concentrated in the South and the Midwest, are poised to ban abortion in almost all cases if the Supreme Court overrules Roe.
Some of these bans will start immediately, either because of pre-Roe laws still on the books or new ‘trigger laws’ that will take effect the moment Roe is overturned. Scholars and activists have long noted that wealthy women in those states will be able to travel to other states to obtain abortions. But three-quarters of people seeking abortions are low-income, a group that is disproportionately people of color, and they will face barriers that will make it almost impossible to get to another state.”–Greer Donley, David S. Cohen, & Rachel Rebouché, The Atlantic Opinion
“A Gallup Poll conducted shortly after the Sept. 1 order in the Texas abortion case showed that public approval of the court had plunged from 58 percent a year ago to 40 percent today, the lowest in the 21-year history of this particular survey.
A poll conducted during the same period by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and released on Monday found that 34 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: “If the Supreme Court started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with, it might be better to do away with the court altogether.” Two years ago, when Annenberg last asked that question, only 20 percent agreed.
My point is not to suggest that the court should be running a popularity contest, but rather to reflect on the erosion of the traditional reservoir of public regard for the institution. Three polls within the past month show that fewer than a third of Americans want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet it appears that only a third of the justices can be counted on to preserve the right to abortion as defined by the court’s current precedents.
The culture war that brought us to this point may acquire another tangible manifestation as women unlucky enough to live in red states are forced to travel hundreds of miles from home to exercise what for 50 years was their constitutional right.”–Linda Greenhouse, New York Times Opinion
Sprinkles from the Right
⏰🚀 Ready, Set, Go: These opinions take 1.66 minutes to read.
“There’s still a good chance the justices choose to just chip away at the court’s past abortion precedent rather than overturn it altogether. Knowing Chief Justice John Roberts, this is a very likely outcome. But there are three new conservative justices on the bench, each of whom, I believe, finds Roe and Casey legally flawed and devoid of constitutional merit. (Indeed, there are many liberal legal scholars who, despite their personal beliefs on abortion, would agree with them)…
This case will force our new justices to choose between their own judicial philosophies and abortion precedent that has no value at all outside of keeping the liberal mob happy. And if there’s one thing we know these conservative justices value, it’s the independence of the court and the ability to issue rulings in line with the constitutional text rather than the politics of the day…
“Dobbs might make each of them into the next John Roberts, looking to split the difference. But I still hope, as does the rest of the pro-life movement, that this case will be a turning point for the Supreme Court and this country.”–Kaylee McGhee White, Washington Examiner Opinion
“Progressives are understandably worried about the direction that the Supreme Court could take in coming years, with arguably the strongest conservative majority since the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. For well over half a century, the Supreme Court seemed an endless fount of progressive achievement, and some of those decisions could now be overturned.
Naturally, progressives have become vehement proponents of stare decisis and now commonly argue that if the Supreme Court overturns any progressive precedents, it is ipso facto acting out of purely political motives and is therefore illegitimate. It’s worth remembering that most progressive judicial victories of the past century were decisions by courts that showed little regard for the precedents binding on them…
America has entered a dangerous period in its history, marked by persistently low levels of trust in government. One poisonous element has been the politicization of procedure. Elections may be hotly contested, but when election procedures are hotly contested, democracy is in trouble. Judicial opinions may be controversial, but when confirmation procedures are controversial, democracy is in trouble…
Americans of all stripes are getting into a bad habit of undermining faith in whatever democratic institution their party may have temporarily lost control of. These childish temper tantrums unfortunately make every alternation of power constitutionally perilous, instead of a self-reinforcing example of how to share power peacefully in a constitutional democracy.
Americans had better relearn the art of living within constitutional limits, and fast, before they go pining for those limits and can’t find them anymore.”–Mario Loyola, National Review Opinion