Courting Disaster, Conflict of Amendments Dept. 0
At the Hartford Courant, Samuel Teixeira suggests that there is a logical flaw in Samuel Alito’s reasoning in his decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. (Of course, the moral flaw is obvious, but the law and morality are only occasionally related.)
Here’s a bit from hit article:
The Ninth Amendment effectively makes unconstitutional just one method of construing — interpreting –– the Constitution: an interpretation that denies or disparages a right because other rights are explicitly enumerated –– listed.
Teixeira’s reasoning is interesting, perhaps even correct, but irrelevant.
Alito’s opinion was not based on logic or reasoning and certainly not on precedent. It was based on dogma, and the arguments he made in it are nothing more than Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes for “because we can.”
(Broken link fixed.)
