In Prince Harry's July 18 speech, he spoke of 2022 as "a painful year in a painful decade" before citing the war in Ukraine and "the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States," which appeared to reference the abortion ruling.
Did Prince Harry "compare" the 2 things in any way other than listing them as painful things that happened in the past decade? It was a "rolling back" of a constitutional right. What's the point of Alito's sarcasm? It's close to saying, ha, ha, I have power and you don't.
Why the comedy? Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law. Now, Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken." Is that funny?
If people don't want to say the case name — Dobbs — it's because: 1. They don't remember it, 2. Roe is much more familiar and it's easier to say the case that overruled Roe, or 3. They intend to express anger and antagonism toward Dobbs by refusing to acknowledge its existence and envisioning its quick demise.
To jokingly call Dobbs "the decision whose name may not be spoken" is to seem to exult in your power. And that's ironic, considering that the best justification for what the Court did is judicial restraint.
Posts
77 comments:
The Don't say dobbs decision.
Too many Harry Potter allusions…He Who Shall not be Named, Dobbs/ Dobby…all a bit too much, innit?
Alito probably considers that the Dobbs ruling corrected a judicial error, which occur now and then, and does not do anything fundamental other than leave the controversial practice of abortion up to the democratic process as the Constitution calls for.
Therefore, a ruling that encourages democratic procedure should not be listed as some item of misery on the order of the Russia-Ukraine war. Especially not by someone who is a fairly significant figure in the structures of liberty we enjoy in the democratic west.
I would disagree. The best reason I can see for overturning Roe is that it was a bad decision, and the right to abortion was never in the Constitution to begin with. And everyone with any sense at all KNEW it. The battle should always have been in State legislatures. And if Alito, like me, doubts the sincerity of the Duke of Sussex, then sarcasm is indeed the proper response.
From the post:
"Why the comedy? Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law. Now, Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken." Is that funny? "
Calling it a 'right' overstates the case. Certain rights were presumed to exist when the Constitution was written. Termination of a pregnancy by medical/surgical means was probably not in the authors' minds, though those were different times. The same argument - that abortion is a right - has been used to assert that universal healthcare is a right, or universal basic income is a right; I think it's too much of a stretch. If you want it to be a right, codify it in legislation.
Prince Harry is a woke clown. The absolute worst of what elite global liberalism thrusts upon us all. A private jet environmentalist. He knows NOTHING about the US Constitution.
Abortion up until the moment of birth was never a Constitutional protection. Infanticide is not protected by the Constitution. Maybe if liberals would have stuck to “safe, legal, and rare”, we wouldn’t be here. But that wasn’t good enough.
We can do by state, or at the federal level, what Harry’s smarmy, arrogant Europe does. Codify it at 14 to 15 weeks and be done with it. But that requires our elected officials to get their heads out of their asses.
Harry’s is too far up Meghan’s to see any light or truth.
What an asshole.
As a patriotic American, the only good royal is a dead royal. This will never change.
The Duke had no business opining on constitutional issues he us obviously unfamiliar with -- the guy is a lightweight. It's easy to take a shot like that when operating in a friendly environment.
Even though I like Alito, and I agree with the Dobbs decision, I find this unseemly. A Supreme Court justice really shouldn't be snarking this way. Maybe those days are over, but it seems such a role requires detachment from open political gamesmanship.
But if he does talk about Prince Harry again, he may as well run with it and call him "henpecked."
I think the key here is sarcasm toward foreign “leaders”, most especially Harry. My understanding is in most cases, like France, abortion is permitted via legislation. So criticism from people Macron seems like pandering hypocrisy. I’m fine with any sarcastic comments directed at Harry. I don’t read it as Alito saying he has power and they don’t. He’s saying Harry’s an idiot and an ignorant child. I’m okay with that.
I, for one, appreciate a little comedy from a Supreme Court justice. Shows his humanity. Always liked listening to Scalia as well. Kind of made me want to sit down and have a beer with him.
Shorter Althouse: That's not funny, Alito.
If people don't want to say the case name — Dobbs — it's because...
Am I the only one who thinks of F-Troop?
"Did Prince Harry "compare" the 2 things in any way other than listing them as painful things that happened in the past decade?"
Well, that's a comparison of sorts, no?
"What's the point of Alito's sarcasm?"
F$%^k you, foreign a$$h&*^s.
"Now, Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken." Is that funny?"
Well, it could not be spoken in the passage addressed. And the snark is directed at a witless foreigner who "argues" in bad faith.
"If people don't want to say the case name"
So we are agreed after all that its name may not be spoken.
"To jokingly call Dobbs "the decision whose name may not be spoken" is to seem to exult in your power."
Why? It's just a half-raised middle finger to clueless critics.
"And that's ironic, considering that the best justification for what the Court did is judicial restraint."
Agreed. Only RBG and her ilk should be allowed snarky extrajudicial comments.
"I had the honor this term of writing I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law," Alito said.
Context is everything. It was ridiculous that Johnson and Macron felt the need to criticise something that doesn't exist in either of their countries. Why shouldn't Alito respond? The only reason I can think of is that Johnson is a US Citizen. Otherwise we are left with civility bullshit.
Althouse said: Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken."
We should refer to it as Dobbs. It's accurate. Liberals could have left Mississippi alone with the "up to 14 weeks". Just like Europe. But…they had to go for no restriction…abortion up until the moment of birth…infanticide.
They went too far and got burned. There must be some regret at the stupidity of the challenge. More than likely, that is part of the reason they cannot speak its name.
Infanticide is not protected by the US Constitution.
The only proper response to the Duke of whatever is to ignore him. No need to do anything that might be considered spiking the football.
The sarcasm part, if that is what our hostess is most troubled by, is one part Alito personality, three parts a lifetime of being vilified for logical thinking by the tolerant, progressive, enlightened leftists of the Democratic Party.
Alito just read the Constitution. Those who put their faith in judge-made law instead of Article V shouldn't have. How can one justifiably rely on the shifting sands of judge-made law? Roe and Casey were hospital manuals, not legal reasoning.
And can Prince Harry vote in the US? Who cares what Prince Harry thinks about anything? But, Alito gave the princeling credence by stooping to respond to the little brat.
I think ""the decision whose name may not be spoken"" was a barbed joke at the expense of prince Harry.
The Duke of Sussex has strong opinions about Dobbs, yet doesn't even know the name of the case. If he doesn't even know the name, what are the chances he even bothered to read any part of the opinion?
Prince Harry is too self-absorbed to understand the historical complexities of NATO/Ukraine/Russia that got us where we are today. Nor does he understand the environmental hypocrisy that is squeezing Germany as a result. Trump gave a much better speech in front of the UN, warning Germany about their dependence on Russian energy, and they laughed at him.
But, I’m sure fawning Ukrainian Flag profile libs would go wild if Harry and Meghan joined Zelensky and his wife for a nice glossy Vogue photo shoot.
After Clarence Thomas gets impeached and filed, Sam Alito is next.
Harry was afraid to mention Dobbs by name. Alito referenced that failure. Nothing to see here.
"To jokingly call Dobbs "the decision whose name may not be spoken" is to seem to exult in your power. And that's ironic, considering that the best justification for what the Court did is judicial restraint. "
Lighten up, Professor. He was making fun of foreigners who don't have a clue. In particular, he mentioned two Brits. It seems to me his use of "the decision whose name may not be spoken" is very appropriate in that context.
"But what really wounded me — what really wounded me" Professor, you seem _wounded_ by Justice Alito's flippant response. But he was wounded first. He did his job and has been demonized as a result.
The natural thing to happen is that he doesn't like them very much.
Are you trolling us? The point of the article was foreign blowhards opining on US law. They deserve scorn. It's none of their business.
Prince Harry thinks strongly that US abortions laws should not be made by the state legislatures. Those laws should be made only by a five-member majority of the US Supreme Court.
However, now the five-member majority has decided that those laws should be made -- according to the US Constitution -- by the state legislatures.
It's likely that every state legislature will legalize abortion during the first trimester.
Stop with the claim that Dobbs was simply a power move.
You're 50 years too late to object to raw judicial power.
And he mocked Mr. Windsor because Mr. Windsor is such an entitled NOBODY.
But of course you know all the above.
I see: so the Left can spew hatred, ridicule and non-facts as truth -- but let a conservative Justice "snark" and it is "unseemly"? FO. Your double standards are so telling.
It was a "rolling back" of a constitutional right.
“Rights” given to someone by judicial fiat can go the same way. Now feminists will have to learn how to compromise, and perhaps even figure out how to respect pro-life women moving forward. I support access to abortion, but when feminists insist as that the right be extended to when the baby is crowning — or under Ralph Northam’s administration here in Virginia, it was proposed that “abortion” be extended to include babies born alive — that’s quite a ways too far. Cannot you see that common sense regulations were always going to be necessary?
Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law.
You can't lose something you never had. And there has never been a "right" to intentionally kill another innocent human life. And if anyone has bothered to read Roe and it "progeny," you will note that it was never about women anyway. It was about a right of doctors to do the procedure, as Harry Blackmun explained in The Brethren. Certainly after Roe, practically none of the legal challenges were brought by actual women - they were brought by abortionists.
At most, what is lost is the legal ability to commit the procedure. With no justification in the Constitution, the common law, or the consensus of the people, either at the time of the 14th Amendment or in 1973 or in the following 49 years, there is and never has been a "right." Roe was what EVERYONE has recognized it to be, nothing but the imposition of power - the power of judges over the people, the power of doctors over defenseless lives, the power of impregnators demanding that women "get rid of it," the power of employers and schools to offer no help whatsoever to allow a woman to keep working or stay in school. Power, power and more power. But no "right."
It is common and proper to define a right as something which when exercised does not impinge on the rights of others. Abortion never was a right properly understood. The exercise of abortion is to kill another life.
Free speech, free exercise of religious expression are rights. Killing babies is nothing of a kind.
The little boy prince should take his woke wife and go live in Africa and help the people there that they both claim to care so much about. Problem is, they wouldn't get the media there to put out glorious stories about how great they are (in their own minds) They aren't doing anything good in America, except showing how ignorant they are about the constitution, and the American way. WE don't care what either of those two fame whores say and do.
Why the comedy? Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law. Now, Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken." Is that funny?
What is funny is that you thought you had a "Right" based on something so flimsy and obviously stupid as the Roe decision. It was logically flawed from the start.
Somehow you convinced yourself that 9 people could make up any stupid shit they wanted and that gave you a right.
And now that Roe is dead you are finding out that nothing really changed. Only the process.
The supporters of Roe deserve mockery. Hopefully you learn not to live in a straw house.
But it looks like you are just going to whine for a while longer.
"Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law."
Did you?
It also seems pretty callous to compare Dobbs to say the starvation of millions in Sri Lanka.
The day that women lost the right to perform human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes is the date that will forever live on infamy.
practically none of the legal challenges were brought by actual women - they were brought by abortionists
Keep women affordable, available, and taxable. The rape... rape-rape of ten year-old girls happens in darkness in order to sustain social progress. Don't harsh my mellow, madam.
if Dobbs = Russia attack/liberating DonBas from Ukraine <> Roe = Ukraine shelling DonBas
need to get historical events right - world and USA
puzzle [not] to me why R[inos] support arms to Ukraine!
Welcome to Washington DC today. I hear politicians and bureaucrats exulting in their power every week. It's more blatant and obvious than what you claim to have dug out in Alito's words.
Abortion never was a right properly understood. The exercise of abortion is to kill another life.
===========
OK by me as DIY even with accessorizing objects <> it is other human accessories involved that trouble me
What nonsense. Alioto is rightly mocking some Goddamn Englishman for being upset that Roe was overturned. As if its any of his business.
Quit sticking your nose in our affairs, harry - you limey wanker.
Leftists aren't respecting "the rule of law" and are personally going after individual justices and protesting in front of their homes, and cancelling their speeches. I wonder how many death threats Alioto has recieved.
But now I'm supposed to be upset that Alioto made a joke. Sorry, not sorry.
So Alito failed to practice civility bullshit?
Harry and his wierdo wife live in Calf. Abortion is legal there. Infanticide is on the way next. So, Harry doesn't have to worry, he can get his mistresses an abortion, and probably get the state government to pay for it.
For the record, abortions in the UK are limited to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy “except under very limited circumstances.” This is from the NHS itself. Legal third trimester abortion is strictly a post-Roe, pre-Dobbs example of American exceptionalism.
How many nations guarantee abortion as a matter of constitutional right, i.e., as a right beyond legislative limits?
Dobbs returns the issue to the same place it is in most of the rest of the world -- the legislature. This is not a massive exercise of power for Alito to exult over. How foolish for other nations to criticize a decision affirming democratic norms.
...Then straight the first did turn himself to me
And cried, 'He lieth, for his name is Shame,
But I am Love, and I was wont to be
Alone in this fair garden, till he came
Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.'
Then sighing, said the other, 'Have thy will,
I am the love that dare not speak its name.'
"Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law."
Ya, John Emerson & Co. made the same assumption in 1857. Boo hoo.
If people don't want to say the case name — Brown — it's because: 1. They don't remember it, 2. Plessy is much more familiar and it's easier to say the case that overruled Plessy , or 3. They intend to express anger and antagonism toward Brown by refusing to acknowledge its existence and envisioning its quick demise.
How much do you want to bet that Airhead Harry couldn’t tell you what the legal regime for permitting and forbidding abortion is in the United Kingdom? I thought it was very unseemly when American politicians, Democrats, of course, criticized Brexit but at least that’s arguably a foreign policy matter. Foreigners criticizing American domestic policy and judicial decisions is even more unseemly.
Andrew said, "...I find this unseemly."
I'm sympathetic to Andrew's view but torn.
Maybe Alito should have done something like he did in 2010 at the State of the Union address, when he appeared to mouth, "Not true", at Obama's characterization of Citizens United.
Or, if Alito knows American Sign Language he might have "signed" his response to the august Prince.
I'll leave Alito alone--but that twerp Prince Harry can simply sod off. Nobody invited that clown here---well maybe his wife. But the rest of us can do very well without him. At best he's here on sufferance. As for the Brits, well dear Harry is sort of a remittance man-except I think that the Queen may have cut him off. So there is that. There's something wrong in that family line---a lot of them go for some very trashy women.
The left is in a panic because the think we’re interested in Obergefell or Griswold. What we want is Wickard overturned next.
Alito is about a million times smarter than the British idiot.
I'll side with Sammy...
P.S. If you're a foreigner, you know what to do with your opinions on American politics.
Oh please. It is a bit much for a former ConLaw professor, however committed to aborting unborn babies, to pretend that Roe was anything other than an insult to constitutional scholarship and that foreign criticism of Dobbs is not both hypocritical and laughable.
Prince Harry? Really? Taking him seriously is to applaud buffoonery. Good on ya, Justice Alito!
It was a "rolling back" of a constitutional right.
Is there a Constitutional right to abortion in Prince Harry's country?
Why or why not?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Women have lost an important (unenumerated) right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law.
I, too, was struck by the Duke's phrasing. For a moment I thought he was talking about Free Speech or the right to peaceably assemble or the right to worship all of which were violated in the British Commonwealth countries in the past year. Then I realized he was talking about an American constitutional right that was discovered about 180 years after the Bill of Rights by 9 un-elected men detecting penumbras. Unlike the British, we have a written constitution with a process for amendment.
I thought the word not to be spoken was abortion.
I am a moderate pro-choicer - first trimester only with exceptions for life and physical health of the mother.
I, too, was struck by the Duke's phrasing. For a moment I thought he was talking about Free Speech or the right to peaceably assemble or the right to worship all of which were violated in the British Commonwealth countries in the past year. Then I realized he was talking about an American constitutional right that was discovered about 180 years after the Bill of Rights by 9 un-elected men detecting penumbras. Unlike the British, we have a written constitution with a process for amendment.
I thought the word not to be spoken was abortion.
I am a moderate pro-choicer - first trimester only with exceptions for life and physical health of the mother.
Here is a 2019 article from the BBC on abortion rights in the UK:
What is the abortion law in England, Scotland and Wales?
-- Abortions can take place in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales.
-- However, they have to be approved by two doctors. They must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than a termination.
-- Abortions were illegal before the the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act, which initially allowed them to take place up to 28 weeks. This was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990.
Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:
-- the woman's life is in danger
-- there is a severe fetal abnormality
-- the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury
Since 2018, women in England have been allowed to take the second of two early abortion pills at home, rather than in a clinic. This brings the rules in line with Scotland and Wales.
Here are the rules for abortion in Great Britain: "Under the 1967 Abortion Act, women can have an abortion up to 24 weeks after approval from two doctors who "must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than a termination..." Abortions can be carried out after 24 weeks, but only if a woman's life is in danger or if they are "at risk of grave physical and mental injury,” as well as a "severe foetal abnormality. Abortion is available under the NHS in England, Scotland, and Wales. However, women living in Scotland and Wales may face limited services."
So why is the rogue prince in the US complaining about abortion laws he obviously doesn't understand when there is and has been for all his life more restrictive abortion laws in Great Britain which could use his sense of outrage and moral posturing? Why isn't he tilting at those windmills across the pond? Let me answer that: because he's a woke twit who can't reason his way out of a nursery rhyme.
Living under a constant threat of assassination could make a fellow a bit snarky.
"Why the comedy? Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law. Now, Alito snarks that the opinion he wrote is "the decision whose name may not be spoken." Is that funny? "
Try to get over yourself, AA. In 1969, abortion was legal in California. I even did a few, to Inga's horror. Had the Court left this alone, the legislatures would have wrestled with the issue and many states would have followed the same precedent. By 1971, six states had followed the precedent plus DC
I am still pro-choice with limits such as 14 weeks. The irony pointed out by Alito is that the foreigners criticizing Dobbs, are citizens to countries with the same or more restrictive limits. Prince Harry, is of course, an idiot who is led around by his divorced actress wife.
If there's a "right" to abortion, then there's also a "right" to arbitrarily end the life of a stranger for convenience's sake. That's the follow-on, sure as day follows night.
So, if a woman can abort her fetus, the logic carried out to the inevitable conclusion is that I have no obligation whatsoever to risk my own in order to save hers, under any circumstances. Indeed, as a piece of "bodily autonomy", if she's in the path of my car and I have the choice of either hitting her or a tree, if I select hitting her as the low-risk option...? I can't very well be charged with vehicular manslaughter, now can I? After all, we've established this "convenience" thing as a standard for all that, so my choice of things to run my car into should be covered under that clause, yes?
Either life is valuable and worth protecting... Or, it isn't. If you make it OK to kill unborn children, well... Guess where that inevitable logic leads?
I'd be A-OK with abortion if they also mandated permanent sterilization of anyone using it as a substitute for contraception. After all, if you're going to commit murder, then the tools to do it ought to be taken away from you.
And, do note, please, that I'm not advocating for abortion in the case of medical necessity or rape being made illegal, or punishing the victims thereof. Perpetrators? Absolutely; castrate that bastard and take his penis right along with the testicles. Leave the pervert with nothing but a hole he has to piss out of and constantly have to worry about closing up. I and about 99.9% of the rest of the male population have somehow managed to get through life without needing to commit rape, so I think that if you can't, well... The capability ought to be removed. Permanently.
IMO all the Supreme Court justices display a tone of jocular supreme confidence and authority when speaking publicly. (Although I haven't seen any videos of Amy Coney Barrett, so she might be an exception.) Obviously the justices have made it into a very exclusive club, and they are treated with extreme deference, and they get accustomed to that no doubt. Maybe the humorous attitude is an attempt to make themselves appear a bit more human and relatable.
That said, I did agree with Alito's sarcastic put down of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex making public attacks against the US on US soil at the UN. His pompous display of royal privilege here was idiotic, considering the spectacular way he came to the US to escape his royal duties. Finally, Harry's only legal "qualification" is limited to him being married to a former actress who played a lawyer in a TV series. He deserved to be mocked.
Mr Alito was only mildly amusing-- Dave Chapelle needn't fear for his livelihood. He would have been more amusing if Boris Johnson were in fact no longer prime minister in the United Kingdom.
Who cares what eurotrash thinks? Let them sink from now on.
Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law.
No. You didn't. And continuing to repeat it doesn't make it so.
Worthless mask mandates, government ordered closures, compelled vaccines that are sugar shots.
I’m all chocked up about the right to abortion being erased for the Karen Klan.
This is what they get for nominating Hillary.
Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law.
This is worded with typical Althousian precision: not "guaranteed by the Constitution" but "guaranteed by constitutional law." The distinction, of course, is that we can all refer to our pocket Constitutions to see what rights are guaranteed by that document, while "constitutional law" is whatever the Supreme Court may say it is from time to time, regardless of the Court's accuracy or the quality of its reasoning.
It is a perverse aspect of human nature that the advantages we obtain by error or by chance are the ones we treasure most dearly.
"Living under a constant threat of assassination...."
You must be talking about Alito. Nobody has a reason to assassinate Harry the doofus.
PJ at 2:33 PM
This is worded with typical Althousian precision: not "guaranteed by the Constitution" but "guaranteed by constitutional law."
Aha!
Thanks, PJ, for that insight.
My first thought was that Justice Alito could not have given his speech on religion on the campus of Notre Dame in South Bend... That he had to give this speech to an affiliate of Notre Dame over in Rome speaks volumes.
The choice of Rome for this Religious Liberty Initiative 'summit' was certainly appropriate (the schedule of speakers etc is here) because both the Church and religious practice more broadly is under threat throughout the world; whatever compromises the university administration has made with the oppressive plague of intellectual and cultural diseases, well, the Law School is far from being the worst offender and in fact has many stalwart defenders of justice and the common good on its faculty.
True enough, after Dobbs Justice Alito's appearance in South Bend would likely have elicited some nonsense: but international conferences like this are planned long in advance, and the choice of Rome had nothing to do with US politics (not that I have any direct knowledge, certainly).
Not your best. Alito's snark reminded me a bit of Kavanaugh's "you like beer? I like beer" shtick during his Senate hearings. They can get fed up, too. And it adds to the frustration when those doing the attacking are such empty vessels. Prince Harry, take a bow.
Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law.
Wow, Anne is channeling her inner Josh Hawley, literally exterminating trans men. So sad.
Ann is being deliberately obtuse. When you put two things in the same category- as Prince Harry did- you may not “compare” them, but you certainly may “seem to compare”.
Alito is not being “snarky” in general, he is “exulting in his power” to tell the Duke of Sussex to go screw himself. Any American should be able to share the sentiment.
"Women have lost an important right that we'd thought for decades was guaranteed by constitutional law."
What garbage. Women have not "lost" any right, because no one has any right to kill an innocent.
https://twitter.com/EveKeneinan/status/1552904021136084992?s=20
I suggest we follow the lead of Unforgiven and refer to Ridiculous Harry as "The Duck of Sussex".
Post a Comment