I started over the weekend trying to write about this opinion. I couldn’t. I was too angry. My post was just angry. This decision was ugly and awful for a lot of reasons. And the one I AM going to talk about is the one which someone tried to use saying “it’s just like Brown v. Board overturning Plessy vs. Fergusen.” No. No, it really isn’t.
In case you forgot, Plessy vs. Fergusen (in 1896) proposed that “separate but equal” was allowed. Racial segregation did NOT violate the Fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause. By the 1950’s, this had been…. let’s called it “pushed the max.”
Then we get Brown vs. Board of Education which is actually a collection of cases all arguing the same thing. “The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,” and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. ” (Brown vs. Board)
They covered previous cases addressing “separate but equal” AND education issues. The court finally came to a simple determination (9-0 no less).
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Brown v. Board
It isn’t a long opinion, I recommend you go read it.
It didn’t actually say “separate but equal” is unconstitutional. Brown v. Board said as we have seen it applied over the past 60 years proves it impossible for the state to implement equality in education by separation.
The decision last week overturning Roe didn’t even try to make an argument that the original decision was constitutional. In fact:
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.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
They outright say that the concept of Stare decisis (precedence) “does not compel unending adherence” ummmm…. what?? That is literally the basis of our legal system.
This is decision is infuriating because it takes a right from people. It endangers every decision of the past because apparently this slate of judges don’t believe in precedence. And this doesn’t even touch on Thomas’s concurrence where he outright says he wants to throw out ALL the cases which rely on due process protection: Griswold (contraceptives), Lawrence (same-sex relationships), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage).
Dream by Day 