info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The atrocious shitty quality of the Alito draft opinion
11 views
Skip to first unread message
bob user
May 5, 2022, 6:22:26 PM5/5/22
to
On 05 May 2022, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> posted some
news:aoVcK.33045$XU1....@fx09.iad:
> It is widely, even if not unanimously, accepted that the quality of
> the legal and constitutional reasoning in Roe v. Wade is wretchedly
> bad. Even many supporters of the result of the decision, such as
> Laurence Tribe, the late John Hart Ely and Edward Lazarus (Lazarus was
> Blackmun's clerk at the time) say the constitutional reasoning behind
> Blackmun's decision was atrocious.
> So, it's one thing to overturn an atrociously reasoned decision, but
> to do it by an *equally* atrociously reasoned decision, as Alito's
> clearly is, is not an improvement. Alito's central claim — that
> something requires express mention in the Constitution in order to be
> the subject of a right — is complete bullshit.
That's your opinion, and you're frequently if not always wrong.
news:aoVcK.33045$XU1....@fx09.iad:
> It is widely, even if not unanimously, accepted that the quality of
> the legal and constitutional reasoning in Roe v. Wade is wretchedly
> bad. Even many supporters of the result of the decision, such as
> Laurence Tribe, the late John Hart Ely and Edward Lazarus (Lazarus was
> Blackmun's clerk at the time) say the constitutional reasoning behind
> Blackmun's decision was atrocious.
> So, it's one thing to overturn an atrociously reasoned decision, but
> to do it by an *equally* atrociously reasoned decision, as Alito's
> clearly is, is not an improvement. Alito's central claim — that
> something requires express mention in the Constitution in order to be
> the subject of a right — is complete bullshit.
That's your opinion, and you're frequently if not always wrong.
0 new messages