Roe v. Wade Must Go for Precedent’s Sake

For decades, every argument over Supreme Court precedent has been a proxy war over Roe v. Wade (In 1973). Whenever judges question precedent, their opinions are read as clues to the future of the court. Roe.

Now then Roe itself is under threat in Dobbs sues Jackson Women’s Health Foundation, The script was flipped. Justice critics accuse Samuel Alito’s leaked opinion draft of upsetting Roe would condemn other precedents: Griswolds v. Connecticut (1965), established the right to contraception; Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the right to same-sex marriage; even Loving v. Virginia (1967), the right to marry without discrimination.

Not yet Roe v. Wade is in a class of its own. There is no modern Supreme Court precedent with less connection to the text of the Constitution; No one stirs up greater political and moral dissension. And if some take Roe is the epitome of precedent, which is yet another reason to overturn it. The doctrine of precedent is too important to be defined by such a poorly reasoned and divisive case.

Predecessor, or determined stare, is the foundation of our constitutional system. Alexander Hamilton urged in Federalist No. 78 that “to avoid arbitrariness in the courts, it is imperative that they be bound by strict rules and precedent.” America’s judicial power reflects its English common-law heritage: By valuing the decisions of previous judges, each new generation of judges will admit their own errors and practice their own free will. curb.

But American judges must first be governed by the written Constitution. Hamiltonians’ respect for both “rule and precedent” is further complicated when old precedents conflict with the judge’s reading of the Constitution.

The Roberts Court faces such a moment, as the conservative majority adopts an originalist methodology different from the dominant jurisprudence of the previous generation. But these are not the first judges to question the wisdom or correctness of the precedents they have inherited. Liberal courts from the New Deal era to the 1960s overturned many 19th-century precedents based on new interpretations of the Constitution.

Justice Alito’s draft comments in Dobbs demonstrates a Constitution-centered approach to reading the text and considering precedent. First, it analyzes the text of the Constitution, to determine whether Roe was properly decided. Then, on the question of staring determinism, it examines why even a false precedent can remain intact.

Critics point to the draft’s skepticism towards judges-imposed rights that are not enshrined in the Constitution, are “deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation” and are “hidden in the concept” orderly liberty” – quoted from Supreme Court precedent. They claim that approach will perish Loving, Griswold, Obergefell, and more.

Their call to Love is baseless. The court’s rejection of laws against interracial marriage is clearly in line with the 14th Amendment’s right to “equal protection among laws”.

Griswold and Obergefell are ambiguous interpretations of the text of the Constitution. But any case that seeks to overturn them will need to seriously confront the obvious determinants that Justice Alito’s draft comments highlight, such as the “workability” of money. and its effect on other areas of law.

Overturned Obergefell would disturb the legal relationships of countless same-sex spouses and their families and a host of other related rights. And protect Griswold as a matter of deciding staring would be much different than defending Roe.

Because abortion involves not only the mother but also the fetus (and the government’s interest to both), court abortion law has always been a jumble of categories. regulated and multifactorial tests, more like legislative diaries than judicial reasoning. Griswolds, on the contrary, simply creates a discriminatory right to contraceptives for married couples, extending to unmarried persons in Eisenstadt sues Baird (In 1972). Even if these cases are decided wrong, they are far more viable than Roe.

Such gazed decisive considerations ultimately remain prudent judgments. But that’s exactly the point: Embracing precedent in our constitutional system means taking the specifics and circumstances of each precedent seriously. Like all prudential judgments, a judge’s analysis of the determining factors is bound to foster debate and criticism. And judges can execute their rulings badly – ​​but so can critics, especially as they try to reduce the doctrine of precedent itself, one of the most nuanced parts of government. constitutional self-sacrifice, into slogans.

Give up Roe will improve this part of our constitutional discourse. Precedents in other areas of law will be assessed and debated in a more nuanced and open manner without the need for lawyers, judges and citizens to look over their shoulder at what Senator Arlen Specter once did. called the “super precedent” of Roe. The cases will be taken more seriously on their own terms, and not as a proxy battle for abortion rights brought by the courts.

Roe is a bad precedent, but the precedent itself is a constitutional good. Abandoning the former will do justice to the latter.

Mr. White is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Last year, he served on President Biden’s Committee on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wonder Land: How did the United States become a nation on the brink of political or personal violence? Image: AP / Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly

Copyright © 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 Roe v. Wade Must Go for Precedent’s Sake

Alley Einstein is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button