4 ms·

Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) Of course it is similar it was a test bed to pull

Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) Of course it is similar it was a test bed to pull this. At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way.

vitus 3y ago
> Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) What, the Federalist Society? In as far as the last three justices willing to overturn Roe were hand-selected by them, yes, but there was little doubt that any of them would vote to overturn Roe even before their confirmations. > At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way. On one hand, there's a difference between who authored those opinions (say what you will about Scalia, but his application of originalism didn't have as clear of a partisan bent). On the other, there was clearly an effort to thread the needle such that both Thomas (who wanted Dobbs to go so much further) and Roberts (who has started to think about his court's legacy and its public perception) were willing to sign onto said opinion. I suspect we would have had the same style of opinions 5 years ago if it had been Ginsburg instead of Scalia who passed away in 2016.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Wasn't Originalism brought to Roberts decades ago by right leaning groups trying to push him towards more explicitly Conservative rulings? I am not saying he is partisan but it is hard to say he is neutral when Originalism has been used as a hammer to eliminate Liberal ideas like "maybe we shouldn't regulate modern guns used to kill dozens like muskets" or "what right does the state have over what health care a woman chooses with regards to the most dangerous thing she will do in her life".
  - vitus 3y ago
    Yeah, originalism isn't particularly new. I'm not saying Roberts is actually neutral, for what it's worth. He just doesn't want his court to be seen as particularly partisan. He and Kavanaugh are just the closest we have to the center of the current court.

vitus 3y ago

> Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) What, the Federalist Society? In as far as the last three justices willing to overturn Roe were hand-selected by them, yes, but there was little doubt that any of them would vote to overturn Roe even before their confirmations. > At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way. On one hand, there's a difference between who authored those opinions (say what you will about Scalia, but his application of originalism didn't have as clear of a partisan bent). On the other, there was clearly an effort to thread the needle such that both Thomas (who wanted Dobbs to go so much further) and Roberts (who has started to think about his court's legacy and its public perception) were willing to sign onto said opinion. I suspect we would have had the same style of opinions 5 years ago if it had been Ginsburg instead of Scalia who passed away in 2016.

Guvante 3y ago
Wasn't Originalism brought to Roberts decades ago by right leaning groups trying to push him towards more explicitly Conservative rulings? I am not saying he is partisan but it is hard to say he is neutral when Originalism has been used as a hammer to eliminate Liberal ideas like "maybe we shouldn't regulate modern guns used to kill dozens like muskets" or "what right does the state have over what health care a woman chooses with regards to the most dangerous thing she will do in her life".
- vitus 3y ago
  Yeah, originalism isn't particularly new. I'm not saying Roberts is actually neutral, for what it's worth. He just doesn't want his court to be seen as particularly partisan. He and Kavanaugh are just the closest we have to the center of the current court.