The court is not where this stuff should be fought out. Its the province of the legislature. That's precisely why Dobbs threw it back to the States.

The court is supposed to be brakes on the system, to stop the other branches from infringing on existing rights, not inventing new ones out of whole cloth, because they aren't the legislature.

The issue with arguing that the right to privacy extends to abortions is that where does it stop? What is the limit to the right to privacy. All rights have their limits somewhere, because the right to something means defining what encompasses that right. I could strawman it to death, and my point is, without a limit it would swallow up everything else. And should SCOTUS be the one creating and defining those limits? From what basis of constitutional text should they have that power?

Dobbs wasn't just made up from nothing. It legally made sense. The historical part is a bit wanting. But there were problems with it. But Roe was even more made up. Its legally suspect from day 1. The legal roots are nonexistant. Disregarding precedent made sense since what was an undue burden was never really established. It was constantly going back to the court on the same question presented.

I think Alito played a bit fast and loose with the history part particularly around his analysis on the quickening part. And yes I think it makes a difference how much is covered by the text of the law because that's kind of their job. Roe existed because there was nothing addressing abortions, thus they literally made up the law, not interpreting the law.

As a potential future lawyer who has been paying attention to the law, what are the primary objections to ISLT? Personally, I think the strong variant is batshit crazy, but the weak variant is more logically sound to me. I think the textual support is quite strong. I've heard that the counterargument would be based on historical precedent, saying that goes against how things were done in the past, and I think you allude to it here, "More than 170 state constitutional provisions, 650 state laws, thousands of rules and regulations, and hundreds of state court decisions would be thrown into question."

Since the States and the federal government are both sovereign, that means both are operative. And the federal government gives the power to the State legislatures. But the State legislatures are still bound by their own constitutions. Therefore it seems to me, that regardless of what the ISLT says, the States are still bound by whatever restrictions are in their own constitution, as well as State court precedent interpreting said constitution. So there might be a conflict of law issue, in which case, judges attempt to reconcile both, which might be difficult. But I don't think the Supremacy Clause can be interpreted to override the State constitutional provisions at issue, since the whole point of the system is that the people from each State send representatives from their States and the States themselves send representatives to Congress.

I mean, Roe was pretty detached from the constitution. The penumbra and emanation logic was never been used again.

At least this case is directly about elections, something that is addressed by the text.

That was the takeaway from the Robbers cave experiment. That exposure to others can destroy outgroup bias. When the two groups of boys were assigned cooperative games, they stopped hating each other and saw they were just there to have fun at a summer camp too.