SCOTUS Strikes Down Challenged Provisions of Texas Abortion Law
Court finds that HB 2 constitutes an “undue burden” on right to abortion
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down two challenged provisions of Texas’ abortion law, HB 2, the law that launched former Texas State Senator Wendy Davis to fame (or infamy, depending on your political leanings) for her pink-sneakered filibuster.
Previous court decisions had upheld HB 2’s ban on late term abortions. At issue here were two other provisions: 1) that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital and 2) that abortion clinics have facilities comparable to outpatient surgical centers.
The State of Texas had argued that these provisions were necessary protections for women’s health, and the abortion clinics challenging the law had argued that they were an undue burden on the right to abortion and were designed to force clinics to close.
You can read the opinion here: Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt. The vote breakdown is predictable: Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the majority, and was joined by the other liberal justices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, plus the Court’s swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Court’s conservative justices, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented. Had Justice Antonin Scalia not died earlier this year, he would have presumably joined the dissenting judges, leading to a 5-4 decision, so that wouldn’t have been a different result, unless Scalia would have been more persuasive than the others in convincing Kennedy to join their side.
The majority of Justices agreed with the clinics. From Breyer’s opinion:
We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution. [citations omitted]
The Court’s opinion cites a list of evidence in the record from the District Court regarding the number of abortion clinics in Texas, how many had closed since the passage of HB 2, and how many were planning to close, in addition to the low rate of minor or serious medical complications during abortion procedures in Texas. In Whole Women’s Health, the District Court had ruled in favor of the clinics, blocking the two provisions of HB 2, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had overruled that decision.
The Court disagreed with the deference that the Fifth Circuit had shown to the Texas Legislature’s claims of medical necessity to support HB 2:
The statement that legislatures, and not courts, must resolve questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this Court’s case law. Instead, the Court, when determining the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion procedures, has placed considerable weight upon evidence and argument presented in judicial proceedings.
Regarding the admitting privileges requirement, the Court did not find evidence to back up Texas’ claims:
We have found nothing in Texas’ record evidence that shows that, compared to prior law (which required a “working arrangement” with a doctor with admitting privileges), the new law advanced Texas’ legitimate interest in protecting women’s health.
We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.
HB 2 did lead to abortion clinics closing in Texas, and “[t]hose closures meant fewer doctors, longer waiting times, and increased crowding.” While “increased driving times do not always constitute an ‘undue burden,'” the Court noted, “when viewed in light of the virtual absence of any health benefit,” that tipped the scales in favor of finding an undue burden.
The Court also found unpersuasive Texas’ argument that HB 2 would help prevent horrors like those found at Kermit Gosnell’s clinic:
[T]he dissent suggests that one benefit of H. B. 2’s requirements would be that they might “force unsafe facilities to shut down.” To support that assertion, the dissent points to the Kermit Gosnell scandal. Gosnell, a physician in Pennsylvania, was convicted of first-degree murder and manslaughter. He “staffed his facility with unlicensed and indifferent workers, and then let them practice medicine unsupervised” and had “[d]irty facilities; unsanitary instruments; an absence of functioning monitoring and resuscitation equipment; the use of cheap, but dangerous, drugs; illegal procedures; and inadequate emergency access for when things inevitably went wrong.”
Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. Regardless, Gosnell’s deplorable crimes could escape detection only because his facility went uninspected for more than 15 years. Pre-existing Texas law already contained numerous detailed regulations covering abortion facilities, including a requirement that facilities be inspected at least annually. [citations omitted]
The Court likewise found Texas’ arguments in favor of the outpatient surgical center requirement unpersuasive, noting that there were higher mortality risks associated with home births attended by midwives, colonoscopies, liposuction, etc., none of which were subject to the same requirement. “The record evidence thus supports the ultimate legal conclusion that the surgical-center requirement is not necessary.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued the following statement in response to the ruling:
“The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost. Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”
Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter: @rumpfshaker.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution. [citations omitted]
Okay, so I suppose they would agree now with repealing the undo burden on the second amendment imposed by gun controls citing the low murder rate by firearms. I mean if we want to remain consistent that is.
Consistent interpretation of the Constitution isn’t the majority’s strong suit, as Justice Thomas aptly notes in dissent:
“Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitutional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgments until the last shreds of its legitimacy disappear.”
Not a lawyer, but could 2A cases cite their “logic” from this decision when arguing against infringments?
There are TRAP laws for gun ownership? Where?
“Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.”
In a nutshell, why we don’t need more gun control laws.
Abortion is a truly wicked sin. One way to avoid going down slippery slopes is to avoid slippery places. Self control, in the first place, helps prevent unwanted pregnancies. The blame goes back, not to the Anglicans and the 1930 Lambeth Conference, who separated sex for procreation from sex for recreation. Rather, we should thank the fathers of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, for denying that Marriage is a sacrament. Before that 1930 conference Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church that sex was for procreation in the midst of a valid marriage.
So you’ve appointed yourself the head of the “Committee to promote virtue and punish “sin””? Which religious superstition would you have the state force every one to “believe” in?
We need moral and virtuous people, living moral and virtuous lives. Sexually promiscuous behavior leads to “unintended pregnancies”. Virtuous behavior will be more like people “saving” themselves for marriage. Expect abortions with the first, not the second. One explanation for Margaret Sanger support for abortion is that she was a sexual profligate, and abortion fit into her lifestyle, so she wanted to share with the world. See, if everybody is doing “it”, then she isn’t the wild and wicked one.
Not all abortions are due to ‘sexual profligacy’. Besides, Sanger was mainly concerned with birth control which can have great utility in monogamous relationships.
Sanger understood that women benefited when they could control their reproduction. Our economy and our power comes from the ability of both men and women to reach their full potential; as well as to reproduce by plan at the appropriate time.
I do not dispute your belief that you should have sex only for reproduction. All that the rest of us ask is that you keep your hands off our reproduction.
I see no reason to dispute your beliefs or the conclusions you draw from your beliefs. You simply cannot legislate your faith – and it is faith; not fact.
“So you’ve appointed yourself the head of the “Committee to promote virtue and punish “sin””? Which religious superstition would you have the state force every one to “believe” in?”
Wowser. Lighten up. Where did this committee come from? You would find such a committee in the Muslim world, down at the mosque. I’m just suggesting two of my favorites, which go together. “Didn’t see that coming.” and “What did you think was going to happen?”
There is such a thing a natural law, a sense we all have about right and wrong. Watch early elementary students. They haven’t been alive to long enough to have sat through many lectures on ethics, but they have a very clear idea of right and wrong. They know stealing is wrong. They know telling lies about other people is wrong. People know, without being told, that you don’t sleep with your best buddy’s girlfriend, and if she comes on to you, you walk away. We can, with practice, over time dull our senses to right and wrong.
Our democracy depends on citizens following the law because they want to, because it is the right thing to do. Communist countries all have to have secret police to throw people into jail in the middle of the night because the laws are corrupt and people naturally rebel. Other than the IRS, we haven’t had a secret police. Sure the FBI would investigate, but in the past, only if they were given cause to be suspicious.
The Constitution doesn’t mention ‘sin’ even once. I guess that is why the decision doesn’t address that.
With the overthrow of the existing order in 1917 Russia, the Communist knew they needed to destroy the Church and the family. So they made divorce and abortion readily available, and quickly had a 90% divorce rate and lots of abortions. When the family has been destroyed, then the state can raise the children, indoctrinating them into a corrupt culture. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Moral and virtuous behavior are necessary for a free market, liberty oriented, democracy to survive. The sexual profligacy which leads to abortions, the destruction of the values necessary for marriages and families to survive, will destroy us. If only because that sexual profligacy is a marker for other flaws of character. A man who will cheat on his future spouse will cheat on his employer, his employees, and his business partners.
The Soviets based their system on an ideology. You also have an ideology. I see little to recommend either.
The Soviet system came about because the power structure was extremely corrupt and engaged in the very things you deplore. What they replaced it with has proven to have been disastrous. But that doesn’t make your ideology right.
Preach as you wish. But you cannot legislate your beliefs – especially with specious TRAP laws.
“Preach as you wish. But you cannot legislate your beliefs – especially with specious TRAP laws.”
Whatever are you talking about, “cannot legislate your beliefs”? That is done all the time. Why do you think we have banned incandescent light bulbs or some places mandate school attendance, or recycling, or speed limits? Enough people, and legislators, believed that was the “right” thing to do.
Do what you want with your body parts, and the body parts of your consenting partners, but once a life is created, then it does become a community issue. There is a beating heart, and if allowed to come to fruition, a human is born.
@Milwaukee Science is no just another religion. Science needs to be observable and repeatable. Religion is based on faith, revelation and authority. See the difference?
Life, in this country, is not determined by a beating heart. Brain activity is the objective standard. We can keep a heart beating indefinitely by mechanical means, but the person is considered dead when there is no brain activity. If the right to life movement wishes to consider a compromise based on brain waves, I think the pro-choice side would agree. But that would have to be definitive.
As for the other things you mentioned, I could respond. But they hardly seem in the same category.
There was a time when vivisection was considered a crime and woman were denied anesthesia during childbirth based on the claim that god intended women to suffer. Do you partake of all the benefits provided by modern scientific medicine?
I suggest that you become a christian scientist and just rely on god for all of your medical needs. Maybe when you next get sick god wants you to die and you shouldn’t interfere with his plan? Besides you are saved. Why not catch the express train to heaven instead of taking that antibiotic?
The Constitution also doesn’t mention evil. Now there is a third rail. Some things are evil, and some people are evil. Engaging in some sin doesn’t make a person evil, we all sin. Repeatedly engaging in deliberate sin, and telling ones self that this sin wasn’t that bad, will make a person evil. Moral and virtuous people try to avoid sinful behavior. I’m sure you could think of a short list: don’t lie, cheat, or steal; or tolerate those who do. A person only has to lie once in a while to become a liar. Once a liar it isn’t too much work to become evil.
Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.
Yet these same judges mock the idea that criminals don’t care about gun laws. Someone should just take this whole decision and replace the word “abortion” with “bearing arms” and read it back to these justices.
Statutes don’t create a civil society. Nor are laws an anodyne for social failure.
A civil society requires informed citizens and the consent of the governed. The last eight years has seen horrific social deterioration. A generation of mush minded millennials spewing out snarky juvenilia. The goal of a civil society is slipping away.
Ok. In light of the SCOTUS decision, the State Legislature has ONE clear path. Since they can’t regulate abortion on “health” grounds (as SCOTUS says that’s “unreasonably burdensome”) then it’s time to go the “economic” route.
Texas should pass a law stating that all abortion clinics, doctors, staff members or ancillary individuals providing support are now subject to “strict liability” for any injury suffered for civil suit purposes.
Further, remove the ability of those practices to operate in any form of limited liability structure (no PLLP, no LLP, no LLC, no C-Corp, OWNERS become personally liable). There’s lots of business types that the State already does this for (bonding companies, for example) in order to make the owners personally liable.
Change the civil burden of proof for injury to the pregnant individual which is attributable to any abortion procedure (put it on the Defendant to prove that the injury did not occur), remove the statute of limitations for bringing such action, and make such removal of statute of limitations retroactive.
Make a specific exemption to the rules regarding payment of attorney’s fees brought for actions against abortion providers, with a specific finding that individuals who bring actions against them are inappropriately disadvantaged (as that is the reasoning that SCOTUS says that the clinics shouldn’t be subject to the requirements regarding level of care.
Maybe tie the damages subject to “treble” damages multipliers. Maybe tie it to the DTPA statute.
Basically make the abortion providers “guarantee” that the procedure is safe, and make them liable for any injury suffered.
THAT should get everyone’s attention very quickly.
It would get attention —- and it is a very clever approach. Brilliant in many ways. Let’s let women sue their abortionists for emotional distress if they have second thoughts years later. (Sort of like suing gun manufacturers).
Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, these schemes may be vulnerable to a 14th Amendment Equal Protection challenge. While we right papers on “equal protection” scrutiny and jurisprudence, the Supremes can change the rules to suit the result.
Here’s a thought. Instead of trying to use underhanded, unconstitutional rules, regulations and statutes, why don’t you just pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion? There is a procedure set down in the constitution itself on how to do it. Now I know you only “believe” in the 8 “rights” spelled out in the first 10 amendments, but SCOTUS has pronounced that abortion is a RIGHT. Now are you one of the theocrats that “believe” that this is a nation ruled by YOUR religious superstition or do you think that injecting state POWER into an individuals choices is somehow “conservative”. Either way, this decision by the Court is correct. The Texas legislature was just trying to close abortion providers with a law that had NOTHING TO DO with “safety”. Otherwise, why were only abortion clinics “regulated”? Why doesn’t your barber have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital? There is more likely a “safety” hazard at a barbershop than an abortion center. You don’t like abortion? FINE! DON’T HAVE ONE! Otherwis what someone else does with their body is NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS!
“Why doesn’t your barber have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital?”
Because haircuts don’t result in thousands of people requiring hospitalization every year.
What I heard was that it was about keeping abortion clinics in line with other ambulatory surgical centers, it wasn’t singling out abortion clinics.
Actually, if you were to abuse your child, it is the business of the community to stop you.
Right, what you do get to do things to your body, and how men pleasure themselves with your body is your business, although I would pity you. Although the liberal left doesn’t want you to have a choice in how much tobacco your smoke, or how many ounces are in your soft drink, so they really are not pro-choice. Now, that “thing” being aborted is an unborn human being. I do get to make the killing of innocent people my business.
Getting mad at people who love life isn’t going to ease the pains of your past decisions, Fiftycaltx. All that anger isn’t healthy.
” but SCOTUS has pronounced that abortion is a RIGHT.”</i
Which they invented out of thin air with faulty reasoning.
Oh, has SCOTUS ever made a mistake?
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not sure they wouldn’t ‘bonk’ that law just the same as this one with phrases such as ‘undue burden’ and ‘targeted legislation’ in the decision.
As I understand (or possibly misunderstand), Texas abortion providers are treated differently than other outpatient surgical centers. Simply treating them the same might be a more effective remedy, along with establishing a consistent and rational process for small surgical centers to abide by the laws and protect the health of their patients. It could even result in fewer adult deaths or problem outcomes with treatment.
Yeah, I’m an optimist.
The “final solution”, Planned Parenthood, and collateral damage, too.
Never again, right?
The People’s faith in the fantasy of spontaneous conception is resolute. The State will, of course, vote for government revenue, democratic leverage, and scientific progress.
Anyway…
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So much for Posterity. Neither the Blessing of Liberty nor life, for Americans’ Posterity, and with the progress of anti-native policies, for the People. I wonder what other moral principles and scientific theories left-wing ideologues will pull out of the twilight zone.
I’m not perfect, but I am glad I don’t have to go to Judgement Day trying to explain this ruling to God. John 11:35.
As the spokesman for “god” on the internet, s/he/it wanted me to tell you to worry about your own actions and stop trying to judge others by your superstitions.
You do realize that a human life evolves (i.e. chaotic process) from conception until a natural or elective abortion, right?
Contrary to “secular” fantasy and indoctrination from the Pro-choice Church, a human life is not the product of spontaneous conception or delivered by a stork.
Still, you are right, this is a religious/moral issue. Either we tolerate the State-establishment of a pro-choice religion (i.e. “Church”) and its doctrines of abortion rites, Planned Parenthood (i.e. clinical cannibalism), class diversity (e.g. racism), selective exclusion (“=”), anti-native policies (e.g. refugee crises), etc., or we discover principles that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent in order to reconcile moral and natural imperatives.
So you are on board with doing away with the First amendment and enforcing a state religion that agrees with YOUR religious superstition. OK, now go get a constitutional amendment to enforce it.
Do get started on those ‘internally, externally, and mutually consistent moral and natural imperatives’. As soon as you get all your fellow ‘christians’ to agree to them, let me know so that we can start a discussion on abortion.
Since the only such standard that I am aware of is scientific, secular and rational, good luck!
“OnlyRightDissentAllowed | June 27, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Do get started on those ‘internally, externally, and mutually consistent moral and natural imperatives’. As soon as you get all your fellow ‘christians’ to agree to them, let me know so that we can start a discussion on abortion.
Since the only such standard that I am aware of is scientific, secular and rational, good luck!”
Broaden your mind and look up “natural law”. Unless you deliberately don’t get out much.
Natural Law stands without the necessity of being Christian.
By the way, is that the “scientific” which has given us a coming ice age, in the 1970s, followed by global warming? Of the scientific which approved of eugenics in the 20’s? Or has science never been wrong?
My guess is that MattMusson is a man. One of the things men do is protect the weak and the innocent. Thus, in the days gone past, we had men doing the Birkenhead Drill. That was were men on a sinking transport stood at attention while the women and children were placed in lifeboats. Many of those men subsequently died, and all of them knew they had a real good chance of dying that day, but they stood at attention for the women and children. So, as a man, MattMusson is probably bothered by the callous indifference, and evil, which would lead a woman to kill her unborn baby.
MattMusson:
Birkenhead Drill
Kipling’s take on it, Soldier an’ Sailor too .
This SCOTUS does not speak on behalf of the aborted and the utterly helpless.
This SCOTUS does speak for the unnatural, the perverse, the abominable and Molech.
We’re assuming the judges sponsored by the dems care about the Constitution not the progressive agenda.
We’d be wrong.
If you support trying to drive clinics out of business because you can’t get a constitutional amendment to support YOUR DESIRE to use the power of the state to enforce YOUR RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITION, you are not a “conservative”. YOu are a theocrat. I suggest learning Farsi and moving to Iran or Saudi Arabia. They have the laws in place that you desire.
rhetoric alert
Well, its a given that Pro-choicers adopt the principles and methods of the “final solution”, the abortion of unwanted or inconvenient human lives, but they also tolerate mothers as collateral damage when they choose to commit abortion in self-defense or as an elective operation. I suppose once you debase one human life, the other lives are inconsequential.
Actually, it would be simpler, and the original Roe v. Wade decision gave the frame work. Pass a law which makes a beating heart fetus a person. That happens around the 18th day of gestation. Abortion after that is murder. The homicide of a pregnant woman is double homicide.
Perhaps it would be easier to pass a law requiring the remains of an aborted, beating heart fetus, be treated with the same respect as the remains of a born person. The mother could specify before the abortion if she wanted her unborn baby to be buried in a mass grave, or cremated with other unwanted babies.
I must have missed the Constitutional Amendment granting Abortion as a right. I seem to recall that being done through a judicial ruling, based on a challenge of the law as it stood in the 70’s. Seems to me that if another party, say a state, challenges the current law as it stands today, that it would have just as much legitimacy as the original ruling of Roe v Wade, would it not?
I guess you also missed the fact that this was a decision about a specious law and did not have anything to do with protecting the health of women.
I guess it is safe to say that you missed a first person op-ed piece in the NYTimes written by a Texas woman who was carrying a severely damaged fetus that would not survive. She wanted another child, but wished to terminate a pregnancy that would have inevitably resulted in tragedy and might have kept her from having future children. She could not get an appointment in Texas and ultimately flew to Florida. She was relatively affluent and could afford the $5000 in expenses and the cost of the procedure. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/opinion/how-did-i-get-an-abortion-in-texas-i-didnt.html?_r=0
It must be nice to not have to let reality, truth and honesty intrude on your ideological beliefs. Nice for you – not the rest of us.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How did the judges manage to excise the second party, Posterity, from the rights and privileges recorded in the constitution and obligations of government?
I wonder how many people actually find comfort in a pro-choice religion (i.e. selective or divergent principles) and a sincere faith in the fantasy of spontaneous conception.
Darwinism: the DNA of proponents of industrialized abortion will one day vanish from the earth.
If evolution was that specific, all the religious zealots would already be gone. Unfortunately, it is more complex than you can understand.
Do your parents know you’re using their computer when they’re not in the room?
Evolution – even a thinking child can understand!
My parents raised this child to think critically.
The Constitution does not recognize the right to commit or contract to commit elective abortion of another human life for wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic fulfillment. Nor does it recognize a compelling interest of government to normalize or legalize the “final solution” for government revenue, democratic leverage, or disenfranchisement of the People. That is an amendment pulled from the twilight zone (i.e. dark fringes) by liberal judges and sustained by the State-established Pro-choice Church (e.g. class diversity, selective exclusion or “=”, Affirmative Action, mass emigration/illegal immigration). In fact, Posterity is one of two parties named in the constitutional contract, the definitive meaning of evolutionary fitness, is generally acknowledged by civilized societies throughout the world.
It was the state of Texas that was doing the legislating based on specious arguments. If you have a problem with abortion, this is not your case. This was allegedly about protecting the life of the mother. The arguments were at best, disingenuous – at worst they were outright lies.
Fight abortion if you wish. But do not do it with lies claiming that you are protecting the life of the woman when abortion is safer than the alternative and safer than other out-patient procedures which were not similarly regulated. Read the decision.
US Constitution? We don’t need the Constitution!
“And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.
In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.
Federal Judge Richard A. Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
http://tinyurl.com/hf9wm4g
That was a shocking statement by Posner. (BTW, did anyone ask Posner which concentration camp he prefers when the time comes?)