by Josh Blackman
This morning I appeared on C-SPAN Washington Journal to talk about Dobbs. I was asked to explain how the Supreme Court could overrule precedent, and extinguish a judicially-created constitutional right.
This question has been used to criticize the stare decisis analysis in the draft Dobbs opinion. Sure, the Supreme Court has overruled precedents, but has (almost) always done so to expand liberty. Brown v. Board of Education, for example, (partially) overruled Plessy, but did so in the service of expanding the equal protection under the law.
This argument presumes that liberty is defined by removing the state’s power to restrict individuals. Consider Adkins v. Children’s Hospital and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. The former case protected a right of individuals to contract. The latter case protected the right of the people to govern themselves, and mandate a minimum wage. Both cases involved rights of different sorts. To say that West Coast Hotel did not promote liberty is to adopt a classically libertarian understanding of liberty. But there is more than one conception of liberty.
Chief Justice Roberts explored this concept in his Obergefell dissent:Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.
Justice Scalia made this point more forcefully in his Obergefell dissent:
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
JusRead moretice Alito’s draft opinion explains that there are many conceptions of liberty, quoting Lincoln and Berlin:
We see the left becoming more and more hostile to the Constitution and its methods. They want to rule by emotion; THEIR emotions and THEIR desires. Violence is definitely an option and readily turned to. After all, no matter what they burn, loot, threaten, assail or threaten, they can always, with the aid of their propagandists in the media and the Ministry of Truth, blame white supremacists and carry on.