Where the Comment is King

THE NEWS COMMENTER

VOTE  (0)  (0)

Hastings Chancellor and Dean Questions the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court After Dobbs

Added 06-26-22 10:55:02am EST - “We have been discussing political figures like? Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioning the need for a Supreme Court or media figures calling for the Supreme Court to be abolished because ?” - Jonathanturley.org

CLICK TO SHARE

Posted By TheNewsCommenter: From Jonathanturley.org: “Hastings Chancellor and Dean Questions the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court After Dobbs”. Below is an excerpt from the article.

We have been discussing political figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioning the need for a Supreme Court or media figures calling for the Supreme Court to be abolished because it is not ruling the way that they demand. Such extremist views have always found a place in public discourse, but what is alarming is the degree to which legal academics have joined in this reckless rhetoric. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justice “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Now the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman is questioning the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  

Faigman, who teaches constitutional law, ignores the entire thrust of the opinion in returning this question to the states in declaring “those with religious objections to abortion do not have the right to impose them on others.”

While the decision does not make abortion illegal and most states are expected to protect it, Faigman states that “this decision turns back the clock not just to 1973, but to a century when women did not have the right to vote and were, largely, treated as property . .  . the world today is so much less generous and inclusive than it was just yesterday. I tremble for my granddaughters.”

The point is certainly valid that the decision returns women to the constitutional position of 1973 in the sense that this is now again a state, not a federal, issue. However, to suggest that the decision in any way harkens back to a time of treating women a chattel is baseless and inflammatory.

“Just the obvious inconsistencies between the rationales of today’s decision in Dobbs and yesterday’s decision in Bruen striking down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed handguns outside the home raise serious questions of institutional legitimacy.”

Read more...

If you don't see any comments yet, congrats! You get first comment. Be nice and have fun.

Comment Box is loading comments...

CLICK TO SHARE

BACK TO THE HOME-PAGE