"Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a 'great crime' and a 'great misprision.' Pleas of the Crown 53 (P. Glazebrook ed. 1972); 1 History of the Pleas of the Crown 433 (1736) (Hale)."
Surprised that Alito stuck to his guns and continued to cite Hale, who was a fan of spectral evidence in witch trials:
"The use of spectral evidence was introduced to the court by William Stoughton, the recently-appointed Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, who served as the court’s chief justice. According to Reverend John Hale, who witnessed the proceedings, the court based its use of spectral evidence on the opinion of Matthew Hale, a leading legal authority in England, who admitted spectral evidence in a criminal trial for witchcraft over which he presided. Record of that trial appeared in a 1682 publication called A Tryal of Witches taken from a contemporaneous report of the proceedings of the Bury St. Edmunds witch trial of 1662. Reverend John Hale noted that the Salem judges possessed and referred to a copy of that book as the justification for the practice."[1]
I was surprised that Roberts went off on his own instead of joining the majority and assigning himself the opinion to write, or assign it to Gorsuch to pen a brief Textualist-flavored opinion like the one you pulled out of Alito's larger document. (As someone who leans most towards Textualism, that's what I would have personally preferred.)
Interesting days ahead of us all. Not much will change for us in Illinois - other than IL becoming a place for our Southern and Midwestern neighbors to visit to have the procedure done - where does current (or forthcoming) Georgia law stand on abortion?
I also think the GOP will try to distract from the mess they've made by shifting the battles lines. The new front in the culture wars will be a nationwide ban on abortion and rescinding gay marriage. Something Thomas (J) had already called for (which is outrageous in itself. After all jurors are asked to set aside prior knowledge, bias, assumptions and personal preference when committing to judge fairly. Should a SC judge do the same. This guy isn't even attempting to show impartiality).
It shows the duplicity in Chief Justice Roberts statement that the court is not political. And so the court becomes just another institution that no one trusts.
I wonder if this will push more moderate democrats into the expand the court camp. Thomas has already said lgbt issues and contraceptives are next. If dems actually get to 52 senators this election could that mean the end to the filibuster and court expansion? With a corrupt treasonous Thomas being the face of these decisions democrats have a good message to convince the public this is needed.
Thank you for this balanced perspective. I would just take some issue with the abortion increase under the former administration. Yes, abortion pills were more readily available, but these were clearly unplanned or unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Why would we have an uptick in unplanned pregnancies under a single administration?
Trump started in year one to decrease access to contraceptive by cuts to the responsible federal agencies, in addition to Title X, and allowing employers to opt out of the ACA guarantees concerning mandatory coverage for contraceptives. The latter got tied up the courts, but dozens of employers signed separate settlements with the administration that allowed them to not cover contraceptives. And of course, SCOTUS formalized that in 2020.
As you point out, improved access to contraceptives will reduce the need for abortions in these states, but considering that the reductions in access have been ongoing for 6 years now, I am not hopeful.
From the opinion:
"Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a 'great crime' and a 'great misprision.' Pleas of the Crown 53 (P. Glazebrook ed. 1972); 1 History of the Pleas of the Crown 433 (1736) (Hale)."
Surprised that Alito stuck to his guns and continued to cite Hale, who was a fan of spectral evidence in witch trials:
"The use of spectral evidence was introduced to the court by William Stoughton, the recently-appointed Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, who served as the court’s chief justice. According to Reverend John Hale, who witnessed the proceedings, the court based its use of spectral evidence on the opinion of Matthew Hale, a leading legal authority in England, who admitted spectral evidence in a criminal trial for witchcraft over which he presided. Record of that trial appeared in a 1682 publication called A Tryal of Witches taken from a contemporaneous report of the proceedings of the Bury St. Edmunds witch trial of 1662. Reverend John Hale noted that the Salem judges possessed and referred to a copy of that book as the justification for the practice."[1]
I was surprised that Roberts went off on his own instead of joining the majority and assigning himself the opinion to write, or assign it to Gorsuch to pen a brief Textualist-flavored opinion like the one you pulled out of Alito's larger document. (As someone who leans most towards Textualism, that's what I would have personally preferred.)
Interesting days ahead of us all. Not much will change for us in Illinois - other than IL becoming a place for our Southern and Midwestern neighbors to visit to have the procedure done - where does current (or forthcoming) Georgia law stand on abortion?
[1] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2020/08/evidence-from-invisible-worlds-in-salem/
I also think the GOP will try to distract from the mess they've made by shifting the battles lines. The new front in the culture wars will be a nationwide ban on abortion and rescinding gay marriage. Something Thomas (J) had already called for (which is outrageous in itself. After all jurors are asked to set aside prior knowledge, bias, assumptions and personal preference when committing to judge fairly. Should a SC judge do the same. This guy isn't even attempting to show impartiality).
It shows the duplicity in Chief Justice Roberts statement that the court is not political. And so the court becomes just another institution that no one trusts.
I wonder if this will push more moderate democrats into the expand the court camp. Thomas has already said lgbt issues and contraceptives are next. If dems actually get to 52 senators this election could that mean the end to the filibuster and court expansion? With a corrupt treasonous Thomas being the face of these decisions democrats have a good message to convince the public this is needed.
Thank you for this balanced perspective. I would just take some issue with the abortion increase under the former administration. Yes, abortion pills were more readily available, but these were clearly unplanned or unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Why would we have an uptick in unplanned pregnancies under a single administration?
Trump started in year one to decrease access to contraceptive by cuts to the responsible federal agencies, in addition to Title X, and allowing employers to opt out of the ACA guarantees concerning mandatory coverage for contraceptives. The latter got tied up the courts, but dozens of employers signed separate settlements with the administration that allowed them to not cover contraceptives. And of course, SCOTUS formalized that in 2020.
As you point out, improved access to contraceptives will reduce the need for abortions in these states, but considering that the reductions in access have been ongoing for 6 years now, I am not hopeful.