It wasn’t a huge surprise — after all, the decision was leaked way back on the 3rd of May — but it was still a disappointment to see it printed in black and white. I went and read the syllabus of the Dobbs decision, and the entire dissent. (I would have read the whole decision except that sucker is 213 pages, and that’s a lot, even for me.)
BTW, I have to note with some irony that in the 52 days since this draft decision was leaked, they still have made no progress in finding the leaker. Oops. Guess that’s not going to happen.
There will be lots and lots of commentary about this over the next few days, and I don’t want to rehash what everyone else will say or has already said. I will just make a few points:
- First, Justice Alito hinges his entire decision on the fact that abortion was not “deeply rooted” our nation’s history in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. (Seriously, Justice Alito?)
- Justice Alito reaches back to Henry de Bracton’s 13th Century treatise to justify the notion that life begins at conception. (Seriously, Justice Alito?)
- The majority opinion declares that this decision does not necessarily imperil other rights based on the “substantive due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — such as the right of gays to marry, and even the right of couples to choose their manner of contraception — but Justice Clarence Thomas (why isn’t he dead yet?) puts the lie to that notion. He basically says that he believes those rights should be overturned.
- The court’s comparison between overturning Roe and overturning Plessy v. Ferguson — the case that established the “separate but equal” doctrine and is universally considered one of the two worst decisions ever written by the Supreme Court  — is just plain insulting. One can argue about the details of the Roe decision — I have argued in the past that it should have been decided under the Ninth Amendment — but no legitimate scholar has ever equated Roe with Plessy or Korematsu.
- Chief Justice Roberts makes the point that the court could have — as he does — uphold the 2018 Mississippi state law without having to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would have restricted the right some more without eviscerating it completely.
- As the dissent points out, this decision and its cavalier elimination of a fundamental right that has existed for almost 50 years, really does imperil the legitimacy of the court.
- If this decision does not bring people (especially women) out to the polls for the 2022 midterms, then there really is no hope for any of us.
Let’s pause for a moment to talk about Justice Clarence Thomas, whom I despise as much as any human being on this planet. Justice Thomas — that Überhypocrite of all Überhypcrites — that Uncle Tommiest of all Uncle Toms — should have been impeached a long time ago.
- Lest we forget, Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill while he was the Chairman of the EEOC (the federal agency that oversees issues of discirmination and sexual harassment).
- Lest we forget, Thomas claimed that his nomination hearing was a “high tech lynching” of a black man when it was actually a “high tech lynching” of a black woman.
- Lest we forget, “silent” Clarence has been the most conservative and results-driven justice of all of them, notwithstanding his empty claims to being a textualist.
- Lest we forget, Thomas has failed to recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 election while his traitorous wife tried to keep the Presidential election from being certified.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 24, 2022
The line of abortion cases, just like those dealing with the right to marry and to choose your own contraceptives, is based on the “substantive due process” provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is also the line of reasoning that justified 1967’s Loving v. Virginia decision, which struck down the “antimiscegenation” laws then in effect in Virginia (i.e., the laws that prohibited interracial couples from marrying). Justice Thomas is, of course, married to a white woman, the equally despicable Ginni Thomas. And they live in Virginia. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Supreme Court — using its same reasoning — struck down the prohibition on antimiscegenation laws, so that the Thomas’ marriage would become a crime.
So, today I feel the anger, the fury of women about this remarkably regressive decision.
It’s about fucking time.
Again, if this decision does not bring people (especially women) out to the polls for the 2022 midterms, then there really is no hope for any of us.
 The other being Korematsu v. United States, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.
 That has, of course, already been deeply imperiled by Mitch McConnell’s hypocritical action in hijacking the nomination process.