cry v. Wade ruling is ‘disastrous’, liberal jurists write in furious discontent

The Supreme Court’s monumental decision to end long-standing federal abortion protections is a “devastating” decision that takes away women’s liberties, threatens other rights and erodes the credibility of the court, three dissenting judges said. wrote in a blazing rebuke.

The court rejected a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, which was established half a century ago in Roe v. Wade and ratified in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Friday’s decision gives individual states the power to establish their own abortion laws, with many set out to immediately make the procedure illegal or severely restricted in almost all cases.

Read the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade here

Read CNBC’s live coverage of the country’s emotional reaction to the ruling here

“The majority has rejected Roe and Casey for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now they have the votes to sack them,” said Justices Stephen Breuer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena in a joint dissent. Kagan wrote.

“The majority thus substitutes a rule by the judges for the rule of law,” he wrote.

The decision to uphold a restrictive abortion law in Mississippi, the controversy at the center of the case, divides justices along ideological lines between six conservative judges and three liberals in the minority. However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that he did not approve of Roe’s ouster altogether.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

Although he acknowledged that the Court interpreted the 14th Amendment to guarantee certain rights that were not explicitly spelled out, Alito cited precedent that said those rights were deeply rooted in American traditions. should be known and “rooted in the concept of ordered liberty”.

Roe was “wrong from the beginning,” he wrote, and therefore should not be upheld by the principle of following judicial precedent, known as steer decissis.

The liberal wing of the court, which had shrunk to just one-third of a nine-seat bench after former President Donald Trump appointed three new conservative judges during his one-term presidency, has eroded the majority from various angles. . Disagreements page 59.

“We believe in a constitution that keeps certain issues out of the bounds of majority rule. Despite public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals – yes, including women – to make their own choices and create their own future. For. Or at least, we once did,” the Liberals wrote.

He denounced the court for undermining women’s rights and empowering states to enforce harsh fertility laws that compel women to give birth: “A state will certainly impose penalties on abortion providers, including lengthy prison sentences.” may impose criminal penalties. But some states won’t stop there. Perhaps, in light of today’s decision, a state law would also criminalize the woman’s conduct, imprison her for daring to have or obtain an abortion, or pay a fine.”

He accused the conservative majority of disregarding a “panic judgment” to dismiss abortion decisions, thereby substituting “a rule by judges for the rule of law”.

“In the end, the majority says, it must say that it is one thing to override the decision to stare: it believes that Roe and Casey are ‘extremely wrong,’” he wrote in dissent. “That rule can equally spell the end of any precedent with which a vast majority of the present Court disagrees.” Makes it very fast.”

They also warned that the argument of the majority threatens other rights that had been settled until recently, including same-sex marriage and intimacy, and the right to purchase contraception.

Roe and Casey are involved in rulings protecting other constitutional rights, the dissidents wrote, rejecting a majority assurance that Friday’s ruling does not undermine other matters.

He cited the concurrence of Justice Clarence Thomas, who raided against instances that rely on the principle of so-called genuine due process, to argue that “at least one justice has repeatedly been the ticket to today’s decision.” plans to use.

“We cannot understand how one can be sure that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind,” the liberals wrote.

And he hit out at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s argument that the Constitution is “neutral” on the question of abortion and should therefore be left to the states to decide.

The liberals wrote, “When it comes to rights, the court does not act ‘neutral’ when it leaves everything to the states.” “The Court is not being ‘honestly neutral’ when it erodes women’s rights for 50 years.” Instead it is taking sides: against women who want to exercise authority, and against states (such as Mississippi) that want to prevent them from doing so.”

“Kavanaugh” cannot obscure that point by applying the rhetoric of equality, he said.

He wrote, “By dismissing Roe and Casey, this Court betrays its guiding principles. Sadly – for this Court, but more than that, for the millions of American women who have lost a fundamental constitutional protection today.” Lost – we disagree,” he wrote.