The Roberts Court, April 23, 2021 Seated from left to right: Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor Standing from left to right: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

 

The Supreme Court’s Friday morning opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization not only featured the majority opinion and dissent, but also included two separate concurring opinions issued by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas.


Chief Justice Roberts issued a concurrence, stating he would have simply upheld the Mississippi law to ban abortion after 15 weeks without overturning Roe v. Wade:

Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further—certainly not all the way to viability.

But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.

Justice Clarence Thomas also issued a separate concurring opinion that called for overturning other similarly set precedents.

Thomas notes that the decision does not directly effect any others besides Roe v. Wade, but he argued that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure substantive rights and urged the court to apply its reasoning in Dobbs to future reviews of landmark cases.

Citing three specifically, he wrote, “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Griswold v. Connecticut established that married couples have a right to access contraception. The court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And Obergefell v. Hodge established the right to same-sex marriage.

 



Subscribe
Notify of
guest

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kramo
Kramo
5 months ago

Sounds good to me.

Lei
Lei
5 months ago

Every couple has a right to access contraception – it’s called abstinence.

Richard Hennessy
Richard Hennessy
5 months ago
Reply to  Lei

I don’t believe contraception is in any danger. That’s just fearmongering by leftists to scare women. The gay marriage decision is another matter. It had no more basis in the Constitution than Roe v Wade. They were both invented because that’s what biased Justices on the Court wanted.

JimN
JimN
5 months ago

Political Correctness is how you convince perverts to ban together and vote for Damnocrats.

JimN
JimN
5 months ago

Excuse my typo. That should be “band together.”

Dan Tyree
Dan Tyree
5 months ago

God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve

Alberta
Alberta
5 months ago

Same sex marriage was done the exact same way they hid under African Americans discrimination to justify their perversion.