Law Commons^™

Why The Right To Elective Abortion Fails Casey’S Own Interest-Balancing Methodology – And Why It Matters, Stephen G. Gilles

Stephen G Gilles

Why the Right to Elective Abortion Fails Casey’s Own Interest-Balancing Methodology – and Why It Matters

Stephen G. Gilles

In Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to elective abortion before viability, but abandoned Roe v Wade’s characterization of it as a fundamental right that can be overcome only by a compelling state interest. Instead, Casey treats the right to elective abortion as grounded in an interest-balancing judgment that the woman’s liberty interest in terminating her pregnancy outweighs the state’s interest in protecting pre-viable fetal life. Remarkably, however, the Casey Court did not defend that interest-balancing judgment …

It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Living constitutionalism may achieve “good” results, but with each Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, the Constitution’s vision takes more shallow breaths, and democracy fades into elitism’s shadow. The debate over constitutional interpretation is, in many ways, reducible to this question: if a particular outcome is desirable, and the Constitution’s text is silent or ambiguous, should the United States Supreme Court (or any court) disregard constitutional constraints to achieve that outcome? If the answer is yes, nine unelected judges have the power to choose outcomes that are desirable. If the answer is no, then the focus must be on …

It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Living constitutionalism may achieve “good” results, but with each Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, the Constitution’s vision takes more shallow breaths, and democracy fades into elitism’s shadow. The debate over constitutional interpretation is, in many ways, reducible to this question: if a particular outcome is desirable, and the Constitution’s text is silent or ambiguous, should the United States Supreme Court (or any court) disregard constitutional constraints to achieve that outcome? If the answer is yes, nine unelected judges have the power to choose outcomes that are desirable. If the answer is no, then the focus must be on …

Justice Sotomayor's Undemocratic Dissent In Schuette V. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

There are compelling reasons to support affirmative action programs. The effects of racial discrimination, and racism itself, remain prevalent throughout the country. Pretending otherwise would be to ignore reality. Arguing that the equal protection clause compels a state to implement race-based affirmative action programs, however, would make a mockery of the Constitution. Former Supreme Court Justice Hughes famously stated, “at the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional.” The remaining 10 percent is “[t]he rational part … [that] supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.” It is time for this type of judging to end. …

The Separate But Unequal Constitution, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

Equilibrium, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

Think Of The Children: Advancing Marriage Equality By Renewing The Focus On Same-Sex Adoption Litigation, Jacob M. Reif

Jacob M Reif

No abstract provided.