Alito’s Jurisprudence Aims to Bring Back the Bad Old Days
Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is an exemplary piece of judicial writing. His argument is clear, powerful and straightforward. With one small exception, he doesn’t shrink from explaining both how he reads the constitution and the consequences of reading it that way. Again with that one exception, he doesn’t sugarcoat his views to avoid political controversy. And that exception is so glaring that we can easily see through his reticence. Indeed, I think he wants us to see through it because Alioto is not trying to avoid controversy. He believes that a substantial body of Constitutional law was wrongly decided, has a strong argument to defend his conclusion, and wants to see his views triumph not just in this case but in others. His views are also deeply wrong and profoundly dangerous. They are based on a theory of constitutional interpretation that we… Continue reading
