- Apr 12, 2012
- Reaction score
When I was in Law School I reluctantly understood and "accepted" the quasi-legal principle that the art of being a "good" lawyer is manifested when a lawyer makes a wonderful argument for something that is patently false. In fact, one's grades in law school are based on how well obscure legal issues can be extracted from complex fact patterns, resulting in strong arguments that stand reality on its head. My moral rejection of that philosophy coincided happily with my career as a commercial contract attorney, where the bullshit is more manageable.
The nice little legal/Constitutional argument presented in the linked essay elevates judge-made law to a level that is equal with the actual Constitution, even claiming that Supreme Court justices take an oath to follow stare decisis [even when the precedent is wrongly decided]. This is utter nonsense.
There is nothing in the Constitution that even contemplates abortion and the unavoidable "default position" is that it is a matter for the States to decide.
It will be very interesting indeed what the result is and what the various opinions say if this court does formally overturn RvW (which has not actually been the law for a long, long time). Fortunately, the Justices and their clerks are at least as artful as the author of the linked essay, and they will justify whatever they decide with lovely, logical arguments.