Abortion Law Debate in America- How Did Conservative Lawyers Overturn Roe v. Wade?

Jaewan Moon
{"title":"Abortion Law Debate in America- How Did Conservative Lawyers Overturn Roe v. Wade?","authors":"Jaewan Moon","doi":"10.24324/kiacl.2022.28.2.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, which had been upheld since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Roe, overruled by Dobbs, had represented constitutional revolution led by liberal Justices starting from the Warren Court. Conservative lawyers have tried to put an end to judicial activism since early 1980s. This paper reviews the conservative judicial movement in terms of constitutional interpretation as well as social movement. Originalism, conservative theory of constitutional interpretation based upon the text of the Constitutional and original meaning of the text, has been developed to criticize the Warren and Burger Court’s decisions of making constitutional rights based upon a theory of living constitutionalism. Originalists argue that incorporation of current values is the obligation of the representative, not the job of the court. In Dobbs the Supreme Court delivered an opinion that Roe was egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution. Six Justices in majority opinion in Dobbs are members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Federalist Society. The Society, which was founded to promote conservative and libertarian beliefs such as limited government and judicial restraint in 1982, has grown to be the most influential legal network. Though the Society is accused of making the Court politicized, what we as foreign scholars should learn from the Society is the intellectual culture that the Society is focusing on. The Society has accumulated intellectual capital by way of reasoned debate and robust discussion.","PeriodicalId":322578,"journal":{"name":"Korean Association of International Association of Constitutional Law","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Association of International Association of Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24324/kiacl.2022.28.2.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, which had been upheld since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Roe, overruled by Dobbs, had represented constitutional revolution led by liberal Justices starting from the Warren Court. Conservative lawyers have tried to put an end to judicial activism since early 1980s. This paper reviews the conservative judicial movement in terms of constitutional interpretation as well as social movement. Originalism, conservative theory of constitutional interpretation based upon the text of the Constitutional and original meaning of the text, has been developed to criticize the Warren and Burger Court’s decisions of making constitutional rights based upon a theory of living constitutionalism. Originalists argue that incorporation of current values is the obligation of the representative, not the job of the court. In Dobbs the Supreme Court delivered an opinion that Roe was egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution. Six Justices in majority opinion in Dobbs are members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Federalist Society. The Society, which was founded to promote conservative and libertarian beliefs such as limited government and judicial restraint in 1982, has grown to be the most influential legal network. Though the Society is accused of making the Court politicized, what we as foreign scholars should learn from the Society is the intellectual culture that the Society is focusing on. The Society has accumulated intellectual capital by way of reasoned debate and robust discussion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国堕胎法之争——保守派律师如何推翻罗伊诉韦德案?
2022年6月24日,美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案中裁定,宪法不赋予堕胎权利,自1973年罗伊诉韦德案以来一直维持这一判决。被多布斯驳回的罗伊案代表了从沃伦法院开始的自由派法官领导的宪法革命。自20世纪80年代初以来,保守派律师一直试图结束司法能动主义。本文从宪法解释和社会运动两个方面回顾了保守的司法运动。原旨主义是基于宪法文本和文本原意的宪法解释的保守主义理论,它的发展是为了批评沃伦和伯格法院基于活的宪政理论制定宪法权利的决定。原旨主义者认为,纳入当前价值是代表的义务,而不是法院的工作。在多布斯案中,最高法院发表了一项意见,认为罗伊案大错特错,与宪法发生了冲突。在多布斯案中持多数意见的六名法官是联邦党人协会的成员,或以其他方式隶属于联邦党人协会。该协会成立于1982年,旨在推广有限政府和司法约束等保守和自由主义信仰,现已发展成为最具影响力的法律网络。虽然有人指责该学会将法院政治化,但作为外国学者,我们应该学习的是该学会所关注的知识分子文化。学会通过理性的辩论和热烈的讨论积累了智力资本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Crisis of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and its Constitutional Implication Political Party Clause of the Korean Constitution: De Constitutione Ferenda A study on State Surveillance of Telecommunications in Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights Constitutional review of invalidation of election due to election crimes by others Critical Review of Substantive Due Process of Law: Discussion on the Necessity of Substantive Due Process of Law in the Korean Constitution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1