by Paul Moreno
Thomas’s fellow justices should heed his call to revisit past precedents based on this flawed legal doctrine.
Share this story
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
In their hysterical reaction to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, progressives have emphasized that many other rights are at risk now that the Court has rescinded the right to abortion on demand: Precedents protecting the use, sale, and purchase of contraceptives, sodomy, and same-sex marriage could be next to go.
Their Exhibit A is Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs, which calls for a reconsideration of all the Court’s “substantive due process” decisions.
About the Author
Paul Moreno, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of the upcoming book, How the Court Became Supreme: The Origins of American Juristocracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In their hysterical reaction to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, progressives have emphasized that many other rights are at risk now that the Court has rescinded the right to abortion on demand: Precedents protecting the use, sale, and purchase of contraceptives, sodomy, and same-sex marriage could be next to go.
Their Exhibit A is Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs, which calls for a reconsideration of all the Court’s “substantive due process” decisions.
By continuing, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
About the Author
Paul Moreno, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of the upcoming book, How the Court Became Supreme: The Origins of American Juristocracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments