Illegitimate

Evan Vucci/Getty Images

Outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer was one of the authors of the dissenting opinion in Dobbs, which suggested the majority’s decision was illegitimate.

You know when it's bad when members of any organization states that said organization's illegitimate, something never thought possible until the Roberts' court came into full fruition, thanks to the Bushes, Trump and MeConnell. Pushing for a fascist theocracy, this court gutted not only Roe but also the 1st Amendment, you know, the one stating the separation of church & state to be rather important in putting together a valid government designed to serve all people no matter what their religion or non religion might be, a concept alien to the zealots occupying a judicial body no longer considered legitimate in any way, shape or fashion.

In Supreme Court cases where at least one justice disagrees with the majority, three words almost always appear: “I respectfully dissent.” The formulation signals a polite disagreement, one where the justices recognize that different jurists can read the law and the Constitution in different ways and still act in good faith. Collegiality is a virtue to the court for a pragmatic reason: The justices have to work with each other for most, if not all, of the rest of their lives.

So it is notable when any of the justices writes a dissent that simply says, well, “I dissent.” The three liberal justices did just that in Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In their 60-page joint dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan do more than just disagree with the majority’s reasoning—they cast the majority’s actions and outcome as illegitimate. It’s quite possible that this idea will be the nucleus of whatever argument eventually recovers the rights lost in Friday’s decision.

“Now a new and bare majority of this Court—acting at practically the first moment possible—overrules Roe and Casey,” the three justices wrote. “It converts a series of dissenting opinions expressing antipathy toward Roe and Casey into a decision greenlighting even total abortion bans. It eliminates a 50-year-old constitutional right that safeguards women’s freedom and equal station. It breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law. In doing all of that, it places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage. And finally, it undermines the Court’s legitimacy.”

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.