This is known as petitio principii

Barrett’s body of rulings is not that large, making it difficult to extrapolate how she would rule on important issues if elevated to the supreme court. But we have ample reason to believe that Barrett, a conservative Catholic, is hostile to abortion rights and might overturn Roe v Wade when she had a chance. In addition to being a conservative Catholic, Barrett is a self-described legal “originalist” who almost certainly believes Roe was a legally shoddy opinion. (Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not that confident in the legal grounds for the ruling.)

The thing is, when considering constitutional law, what is being decided is whether abortion is a right. Rights stemming from the constitution and the bill of rights etc. Which is something that a judge on a constitutional court should have a view upon.

In the absence of rights as declared by said court then abortion becomes a thing of politics which is where it probably should be in my biased and unimportant view. Like it is all over Europe for example.

The very shouting about abortion rights and Roe is begging the question. Because the Roe question is whether it’s a right or not.

7 thoughts on “This is known as petitio principii”

  1. “… and might overturn Roe v Wade when she had a chance. ”

    Yes, and Joe Biden might go on a murderous rampage and start new wars in the Middle-East! Oh wait, that’s something that will actually happen.
    The fact is that about 60% of Americans support the right to abortion so I don’t think it’s likely to be re-visited any time soon.

  2. Jonathan- if it’s judged constitutional for a state to outlaw it, the national majority doesn’t matter so much, it’ll be outlawed in quite a few Bible Belt states pretty quickly.

  3. If the majority of a polity wishes to ban themselves from doing something, then it is their democratic right to ban themselves from doing it.

    If it’s so damn important, let the people decide.

  4. No, the Wade-Roe question is whether it’s any business of the federal government rather than being the business of the States and the people. The latter is true.

  5. I did like her answer when asked if it was a precedent that couldn’t be overturned she commented she was being asked so many questions about it that obviously there was scope for review, if it was settled and uncontroversial then surely she wouldn’t be asked about it

  6. Isn’t it the point of a constitution that, if its so bloody important, we definitely DO NOT leave it to the electorate? Or at least don’t leave it to whatever the electorate’s opinion happens to be today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *