This is from the Cornell Law School. “The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.”
With that fully understood, I’ve been looking forward to seeing Alito’s opinion. It’s finally out there.
He begins with this: “Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views”. Ok, let’s stop right there. Alito is about to leap into some very hot water here. Alito admits that we have a profound MORAL issue here. So Alito is going to address this moral issue. How is he going to do that without asserting a moral view on the issue himself? And where does he draw that view from? It’s not something he’ll find in the Constitution. But…he will find it in Catholic Doctrine on the subject and as a practicing Catholic, that’s where he’ll find his moral compass.
And now the Supreme Court is going to rule on what is moral and what isn’t? You’re going to make a moral judgment based on your idea of what is moral according to your Catholic faith ( which is what informs you and is the source of your moral compass that guides you toward what Catholic Doctrine decides, is moral ), and impose that on the rest of us?? You don’t rule on moral issues Mr. Justice Alito. You rule on constitutional issues. Morality and religion are not subjects found in the constitution that any of you are qualified to rule over. It’s a ‘normative arguments. This is basic law school stuff taught at Yale Law School where you got your law degree. A normative statement is one that makes a value judgment. Such a judgment is the opinion of the speaker; no one can “prove” that the statement is or is not correct.They’re metaphysical in nature, and there is no absolute right or wrong on morality. We may agree on certain issues that have objectively true applications, but not on others, demonstrating that morality is not a universal subject. It’s subjective. Your moral compass is biased by your deeply held Catholic religious beliefs. They come from a metaphysical religious faith not shared by the majority of the people. Yet you are bringing your moral judgment into the opinion. Your narrow view of morality is impacting millions of women and removing a right by imposing mandatory pregnancies. You’re trying to set moral standards for the rest of the country and resorting to using a 16th century legal figure that prosecuted women for Witchcraft as somehow demonstrating historical precident. And this figure is not even an American or a person that could conceive of what was to come 150 years later with the emergence of a new nation that rejected the authority of a monarch.
Setting moral standards for all to follow is off limits to the court. It’s a religious subject. You rule over positive subjects. Not normative. And Just exactly how does Alitos Catholic faith enter into his dictating what is moral to those of us not of his faith? You’re on very thin ice here Mr. Justice. Your Catholic faith informs your moral views and that establishes religion as the basis for your opinion. That would hold for all the other Catholics on the Court. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett. All of you provide a biased view on morality dictated to you by the dogma of your belief. And of course, this leads us to ask, why on earth is this case not being tossed for violating the 1st Amendment which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”…, because that’s exactly what is happening here. The least these Catholic justices could do is recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest. Their own religious faith dictates their opinion on the subject before the court. Not doing so, demonstrates a willful desire on their part to impose their morality on the rest of the country. And that demonstrates that the Court has become politicized and subject to a Theocratic world view. They will remove the protection of the right of a woman to have control of her body and turn that right over to the states that support the petition to remove Roe and have the final say on what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. The state owns the womans body, denying the sovereignty of the individual. And they take ownership without providing any compensation. When the state owns you, you have tyranny. Lets call it what it is.
The argument against Roe establishes religion as the basis for the argument. And that is unconstitutional as you must know. Once again: Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
You can’t attack Roe without Establishing religion as the basis for the attack, because the attack is a moral attack and your moral values are provided to you by your religion, and the constution prohibits rulings that promote religion. Your only possible ruling must come from procedural or constitutional conflict. There’s no way to attack Roe on moral or religious grounds without using moral or religious grounds yourself and violating the 1st Amendment Establishment clause. When you do that, you are taking a political position by the court on what is moral and you use your Catholic faith which opposes abortion as your guide because there is nothing in the Constitution that can inform your opinion. So it has to come from someplace else. Some place outside of the Constitution. And that place is found in your religous beliefs. In the process, by striking down Roe you establish religion as the basis for your opinion. You, Justice Alito have demonstrated exactly how the Court is now officially politicized and captive to the moral judgments of the majority of the members of the court. You’re legislating on behalf of the Republican party. They can’t remove a right, but you can. Just turn the matter over to the States that support getting rid of Roe.
Where exactly do you derive your moral values from Justice Alito? What is it that informs your moral compass? It’s not the Constitution. Yes, we know. It’s your religion. By removing Roe, you are legislating from the bench. This is probably why the court NEVER removes our rights. It becomes obvious that the court is legislating from the bench if they do it. And with all the information at your disposal and clerks to do your research, you offer this plate of bullshit?
And now this? “ Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.” And you find that unusual?? The Constitution makes no mention of the right to own an assault weapon either. There is no specific right to own property in the constitution either. Read the 9th Amendment. Where does the Constitution mention Civil Rights? Instead it codifies slavery in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. By including issues of slavery in the constitution it establishes slavery as a legitmate institution. What is the long held belief that Civil Rights were real genuine unenumerated rights that are addressed by the ninth amendment?
The right to use contraception, for instance. The right to abortion. The right to have children if you want, and to be recognized as their parent. the right to marry whoever you choose. The right to travel anywhere. The right to own property. These aren't in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution. So now there's another question. Where do those rights come from? The Supreme Court has never really answered that. But it turns out that the Constitution does say something about it. The Ninth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, says that the enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Here it is.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment was designed to answer one objection to a bill of rights, which was that if some rights were written down, the government might claim that no other rights existed. ( Which is exactly what you’re doing) Other rights do exist, the Ninth Amendment says. Don't deny them. And the fact that they haven't been written down, doesn't make them any less important. Don't disparage them either.
The practice of enforcing rights that aren't there in the words of the constitution can be justified by reference to those words.
The Supreme Court protects individual rights that aren't listed in the Constitution. Instead of protecting those individual rights. you are taking them away. What on earth are you thinking? What kind of country takes rights away from the people??
You say this; “In the years before that (Roe) decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same “highly restrictive regime” ( My my. Loaded language from the Court. A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When language is "loaded", it is loaded with its evaluative meaning. A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet. in this case, the bullet is “regime”) on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State”. That’s right, so what was restrictive? Do you mean preventing the states… from denying a right? The people are sovereign. Not the states.
Lets take Alitos argument and apply it to another touchy subject in its day. Alito could just as easily have said this; The Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln, ended the political process (of debate over the issue of slavery). Instead it imposed a “highly restrictive regime on the entire nation, and it effectively struck down slavery in every single State.
The argument is exactly the same. Only slavery replaced abortion. Otherwise you can see where Alito is coming from. Alito would have argued against the Emancipation Proclamation by using the exact same reasoning.
Alito is mourning the states laws that were struck down on behalf of a human right that the people were being denied. That’s what happens when a right is recognized by the Court. Like Civil Rights. They’re in effect all across this country. Same-Sex marriage is a universal right. Inter-racial marriage is a universal right. Womens Suffrage is a universal right. So is the right to abortion. So is the end of slavery and segregation. And Jim Crow. We remove things in our laws that block rights. We don’t enable them.
And here comes Sammy with his hammer: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely-the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Once again the reasoning here doesn't hold, unless you can now say that the right to marry whoever you choose is also void:
Lets check again on Alitos reasoning and see if it serves us well. Lets take Loving v Virginia. The right to inter-racial marriage upheld by SCOTUS unanamously.
We hold that Loving v Virginia must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to interracial marriage, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Loving now chiefly rely-the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ok, so Alito and the court could deny interracial marriage for the very same reasoning.
How about contraception? Griswold v. Connecticut.
We hold that Griswold v. Connecticut. must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to contraception, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Griswold now chiefly rely-the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
And the right to own property is also void, it’s not stated in the Constitution. The right to privacy is void. None of those rights are implicitly protected by any constitutional provision either. Does this mean that all of those rights are void?
Here’s the explanation: “That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, (here comes the best part, and remember, everything that comes before “but” doesn’t count) but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Wait…Why?? Does that include the Civil Rights Act of 64? I don’t recall Civil Rights as being deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. Slavery was an institution that has a deep-rooted history, the kind Justice Alito is referring to. Segregation and the racism that informs it. Yep that too. Even longer and much deeper. Is this a rule found in the constitution, or are you just making it up? I’ve read the document. That’s not found in the constitution, Mr. Justice. It sounds kind of like legal bullshit to me. Slavery was a “deeply rooted tradition”. Is that what you’re talking about? When did we start allowing some “deeply rooted tradition” to override a fundamental right? You’re using a ridiculous application of a logical fallacy; the Appeal to Tradition, to justify the denial of a fundamental right? If history has taught us anything it’s that a deeply rooted tradition, such as slavery (which is codified into the constitution in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1, sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2.) is no justification for the barbaric institution of auctioning human beings as property and destroying family units in the process. We fought a civil war over that very argument ( Deeply rooted tradition) that you’re making and your argument lost, at the cost of over 600,000 dead. With that in mind, how did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ever get passed? Where was the deeprooted history or tradition of Civil Rights? Is the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional? Is that next on your chopping bloc? Traditions are arbitrary, Justice Alito. Rights are not. Didn’t they teach you that at Yale? You’re applying a logical fallacy here to justify your position. It’s a distraction from the fact that you’re removing a fundamental right from half the population. Now we end up arguing over your reasoning.
(There should be no argument. Removing Roe, removes a federally protected right of a woman to choose whether to end the pregnancy or to let it continue. That’s her choice, NOT yours. You’re a male. You have no clue about this. How can you rule on something you don’t understand? Plus you inject your own morality into your opinion, which exposes your own religiously held moral beliefs. You can’t argue against a moral belief without injecting a moral belief yourself. The case should be thrown out of court or all the Catholics that concur should recuse themselves for the same reasons)
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
X is old or traditional (Slavery)
Therefore X is correct or better. ( Slavery is better )
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
Justice Alito, you’re deciding on a fundamental right that has withstood challenges for almost 50 years. And you are basing part of your argument for removal of that right, on a logical fallacy? Is this the best you can do? You’ve already admitted that this is a moral issue, and its clear that you’re injecting your own moral judgment informed by your Catholic faith into your decision in violation of the 1st Amendment. (this is precisely why the court doesn’t take up cases on religion. It exposes the members of the court to their own religous biases which can impact the decisions and deeply affect the rights of the people. ) You stated in the first sentence of your opinion that Roe is a moral issue, so I’d like to know what moral compass are you using here to decide the morality of Roe. It can’t be the Constitution because the Constitution barely mentions religion at all. So what is it that provides you with the moral clarity that you need to tell the country what is moral and what isn’t? And you choose to dismiss the ninth Amendment protection as an unenumerated right, by offering a logical fallacy; the “Appeal to Tradition”, as a justification for the claim by you that it doesn’t have a long enough history or tradition to qualify as an unenumerated right. This is bullshit on steroids Mr. Justice Alito. You claim that the reasoning in Roe was weak?? Your reasoning is ridiculous and a ham-handed way of injecting your own personal moral beliefs into the fabric of American life, while posturing as a defender of blind justice. Bullshit. We all see what you’re doing.
So when you say this; “but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”. I ask you Why? Where is that stated? You need to give me a logical and rational reason for making that claim. Instead you give me a logical fallacy. You’re just making up an arbitrary rule. How long is “deeply rooted”? Is 50 years enough? The 14th amendment gives us an entirely new constitution. All of these issues are 14th Amendment issues. So your “deeply rooted” rule can go back no further than the 14th Amendment. Everything that came before doesn’t count. The Constitution from 1789 no longer applies here. It was amended. The Reconstruction Amendments changed the Constitution. That’s the Constitution we operate from today. The proof of that is in your hands right now. This case could never have come before the court before the 14th Amendment.
You’d like to go back to the constitution of 1789. But our Constitution now is different. The Constitution we live under, in theory, and practice, is the Reconstruction Constitution. Think about the big cases that define constitutional law. Gideon, Mapp, Miranda, Tinker. Brown v.Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v. Wade. What do all these cases have in common?
All of them could never have arisen, they could never have been decided, under the Founders' Constitution. They are all 14th Amendment cases, federal rights against the states.
So, our Constitution, the cases we talk about, the rights we cherish, is not the Founders' Constitution.
And we haven't had it for over 200 years. We've had it for about 140 and some of the most important parts of it didn't get enforced until about 60 years ago.
You want to invoke deeply rooted rights? History and Tradition? So you’re going to decide what makes up our history and tradition using some arbitrary time frame, and deny a right based on your view of history and tradition and combine that with your views on morality? Do you have a date in mind as to when history began to matters regarding the concept of “ordered liberty”? Do you now realize that this means that the State owns the body of every woman in the United States? You don’t own men because the draft no longer exists. So the Government cannot make any demands on a man's body. But, you can own a women's body, thereby discriminating against women. So the court is now violating the Civil Rights of every woman in America while putting ownership of a woman's body into the hands of the State. Do they get any compensation for this or is it justified through eminent domain? How dare you take something that isn’t yours without compensating that person? What kind of asshole are you Alito and do you realize just how much damage this does to the credibility of the Court?
Tell me something, when the draft was in effect and the government took control of a man's body, they also provided housing and clothing, and healthcare. Do you have a plan for providing those things to every woman in America? If you can own a woman's body then you are obligated to provide those basic things that go with ownership. What makes you think you can take ownership without compensation? How is that not the definition of tyranny? “Tyranny noun. the government or authority of a tyrant; a country governed by an absolute ruler; hence, arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.”
How constitution protects against tyranny
Federalism. The first way is federalism to save the state from tyranny. ...
Separation of Powers. The second way is constitution saves people against tyranny by separating the powers into branches: Legislative, Executive, Judicial.
Check and balance. The third way to protect the state from tyranny is check and balance. ...
What protects the constitution against insurrection? And if the SCOTUS is dominated by those with a common religious view, how does that not impact rulings on moral issues that the court has no business being involved in? Who is going to stop them? How do you contest a moral opinion coming from the SCOTUS? Where do you go when SCOTUS is the last court of appeals.
“ Roe's defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged because it destroys what those decisions called "fetal life" and what the law now before us describes as an "unborn human being." “
The law now before us”?? When did that happen? Who described it that way? Who’s description is that Mr. Justice? You’re once more applying loaded language. Fetal life would be the correct term. Why did you need to change it? Oklahoma is now enacting a law that outlaws abortion from the moment of fertilization. That’s called a Zygote. That’s not a baby. I would suspect that you’re using the plaintiffs' claim here and the argument against Roe is a moral argument as you pointed out in the very beginning of your opinion, dictated by religion once again violating the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Just exactly how do you think you can remove Roe by basing the argument on moral grounds when doing so establishes religion as the basis for the argument?
”Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
Once again with the loaded language. Egregiously?? You’re calling Roe’s reasoning exceptionally weak, and offer your own as an example of what strong reasoning looks like? Nothing is going to bring about a national settlement on the abortion issue Mr. Justice. Is that what you think you’re doing? You aren’t. And you won’t. That’s because it’s a moral argument based on a religious view that is never going to be shared by all of the people. It’s only shouted by the most fervently religious among us, and you are subjecting the country to this very loud, vocal minority who’s views you share through your own relgious doctrine. There are no winners in a religious war. You can’t dictate morality from the bench. Even if the bench is the Supreme Court. You don’t dictate morality based on Catholic Doctrine to the country.
“Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe, and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. “ SCOTUS Cantwell v Connecticut.
Those that oppose abortion have the freedom to believe that. They do not have the freedom to act on removing a right embraced by millions of Americans to satisfy their religious beliefs in any meaningful way except by taking their moral argument to the Supreme Court. They don’t, but you do by virtue of your position. And that’s exactly what you’re doing Mr. Justice Alito. As a Catholic, you adhere to Catholic doctrine and oppose abortion. But you also happen to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States and have an opportunity to insert your moral judgment as taught to you through your Catholic faith and remove a freedom that’s been a civil right for almost 50 years. You and the other Catholics sitting on the bench should recuse yourselves from making any rulings on a matter of morality by recognizing a conflict of interest that exists within all of you. Not doing it will change the political landscape in America forever. There’s a reason the court doesn’t take back a right. Doing so politicizes the court. As a result you’re committing the worst possible violation a judge can do. You’re legislating from the bench. By removing a right, you are injecting politics into the decision and you’re doing it based on your shared moral view with those looking to undo a right that’s been viewed as established law by members the Court. The conflict of interest is obvious here. Three of those sitting on the court, testified before the Judicriary Committee of the Senate, and spoke both publically in their hearings and individually with Senators on their view that Roe is settled law. They lied during the hearings and they lied to the Senators in order to land the lifetime gig. You do know that the reputation of the SCOTUS now lays in ruins. There’s nothing you can do now to restore America’s faith in the SCOTUS. The damage is done.
Your opinion violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.” Really? And how does that work? So you want to avoid the issue and send it back to the states to decide on a moral/religious issue? Tell me Justice Alito, what makes you think that our elected representatives share all of our moral beliefs or religion? How exactly does an elected representative for economic issues and taxation purposes now become a representative of the moral or religious views of the district they represent? Do you take a moral issue and put a referendum on a ballot and vote on a moral issue, and the majority gets to dictate morality based on their religious doctrine to the minority? I don’t’ think that’s what Jefferson or Madison had in mind. But you just can’t help yourself here can you Justice Alito?
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, ( well that kind of wipes out the idea that the state representatives are qualified to dictate the morality of the people)
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, ( morality is an opinion Justice Alito. According to Jefferson, You have no legitimate power to rule on opinions regarding morality, and that’s exactly what you’ve done.)
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” ~ T. Jefferson
You’ve established religion as the basis for your opinion which you state as “a profound moral issue”. There is nothing in the constitution that informs you of morality. That, you have to draw on from somewhere outside the Constitution. The moral compass you use to inform you is Catholic Doctrine. The Framers stayed clear of that argument because it would threaten religious liberty. But you don’t care about that. Your arrogance here is overwhelming. You’re going to invoke Catholic Doctrine on the country simply because you can. Your argument is that Abortion is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. But Neither are profound moral issues. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”… Those issues are off limits to the government, and the last I heard the Judiciary is the third Branch of government.
So, you invoke something not found in the Constitution and deciding what is moral for the entire country.
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of (insert here; slavery, segregation, womens suffrege, interracial marriage, same sex marriage…) to the people's elected representatives. You can’t send moral issues the peoples representatives because they don’t represent the moral or religious beliefs of their constituents. They represent their economic interests. They aren’t elected for their religious beliefs.
Article VI: “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And you can’t put religion or morality on a referendum to have the beliefs of the majority impose those beliefs on the minority. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. That’s not religious liberty. That’s religious tyranny. Our beliefs are never up for a vote. They’re absolute and protected by the 1st Amendment. Beliefs are protected absolutely. Acting on those beliefs is not. Once again: “Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe, and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. “ SCOTUS Cantwell v Connecticut.
This is Alito’s call for “States Rights”. Except that the States don’t have rights. The people do. The Preamble states; “We the People”. Not we the states. The Constitution was written for the people. The States are always secondary to the rights of the people.
Start here Sam; the issue of abortion doesn’t belong in the hands of the states. The states cannot be trusted to act in the interests of their citizens. The Civil War proved that. Jim Crow reaffirmed it. And it took an Act of Congress to establish civil rights that had no deep history or tradition in America. And the conservative ideology that supported all of those things also wants Roe overruled and sent to the states to make their own decisions on Roe. In doing so, the states invoke a religious moral doctrine on all of their citizens regardless of their beliefs. None of those states can be trusted to act in the interests of their citizens today, when the same conservative ideology that supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation also opposes a woman’s right to her own body.
Our Constitution now is different. The Constitution we live under, in theory, and practice, is the Reconstruction Constitution. It’s the 14th amendment that makes it possible to sue the states. The original constitution didn’t provide that. The Reconstruction Amendments do. Lincoln's theory was that the federal government can protect liberty. It can protect people from the states. The Founders' Constitution doesn't do this, but the Reconstruction Constitution does.
The political visions that clashed in the Civil War are really about who is the highest authority in our system. Is it the states, as the Confederates argue? Or is it the people, as Lincoln claims? It looks like the Alito and SCOTUS sides with the Confederacy here.
And by undoing Roe, you leave it to the states and you’ll hand this moral issue into the hands of religious fanatics and right wing extremists, that dominate state legislatures and will impose their will on women, and henceforth the state will have the ultimate claim on their bodies. State's Rights is a bullshit argument. States don’t have rights. People have rights. States have powers.
The Preamble of the Constitution reads “We the People”. NOT We the States.
Justice Alito is committing one of the most foolish mistakes in trying to convince people of the soundness of his opinion. He’s adding on too many unnecessary contingencies. (see Occams Razor)
You present 98 pages laying out your case which you completely undermined in the first sentence of your opinion. It doesn’t get much simpler than that. You’ve correctly presented this as a moral argument and there is nothing in the Constitution to help inform your opinion on morality. Your morality is informed by your religious faith as a Catholic. You’re establishing religion as the basis for your opinion which violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment. This is why the case against Roe should be thrown out of court. You can’t decide on moral issues, and you’ve stated this: “Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views” When you take away a right you are legislating; and in this case, promoting religion from the bench by taking a position in favor of religion over the secular state that we’ve been from our founding and is the foundation of our religious liberty. And you have to resort to a logical fallacy for your reason. You’re also ruling that the state has a priori claim to a woman's body. A claim that is not asserted toward men. The Federal government is now legally discriminating against women. That violates the civil rights of every woman in America.
Bravo Alito. You’ve destroyed the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. You will go down, and I mean DOWN in history as the Justice that took away a right and placed a government lean on a woman's body by injecting your own moral authority on the country. The state has final authority over a woman's body. An authority that is NOT directed toward men. You are the author of the ugliest moment in recent history.
In Deductive Logic, if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.
P1. All men are mortal
P2. Alito is a man
C: Therefore, Alito is mortal
P1. Catholic Doctrine opposes abortion
P2. Alito is a practicing Catholic
C: Therefore, Alito opposes abortion
P1. All men are fallible
P2. Alito is a man
C: Alito is fallible.
The Supreme court is reversing Roe by imposing Catholic Doctrine.