This past week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Association, the Supreme Court heard extended and heated arguments on whether Roe v. Wade (1973), a fixture of American constitutional law for nearly fifty years, should be overturned. As envisioned by Mississippi’s solicitor general, Scott Stewart, abortion regulation would then be turned back to the legislative branches of the states, subject to any constraints that individual states might impose under their respective constitutions. Dobbs arose because of a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after fifteen weeks, long before the third trimester of pregnancy specified in Roe as the time of viability (around twenty-five or twenty-six weeks), at which the state may protect not only maternal health—itself only allowed in the second trimester—but also the life of the fetus.
This case thus cuts into the heart of the constitutional theory. It is widely accepted that any Bill of Rights necessarily limits the right of legislative majorities from trenching on key individual rights. No one denies that proposition at the most basic level, for otherwise a bare political majority is free to target certain despised groups for death, imprisonment, or confiscation. But that general principle itself does not articulate a coherent answer to the question of which laws protecting individual rights should be respected and which not.
One way to address this question is to hold that traditional practices should inform the social and...
The DOJ said Takahata TN failed to include employees of its foreign affiliates when it applied for a second-draw PPP loan and forgiveness. SCOTT COUNTY, Tenn. — A Scott County company will pay $2.5...