Rrarely a court decision has aroused such a resounding global echo. The Dobbs Judgment vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization, by which the Supreme Court of the United States of America has just abandoned the federal constitutional protection of the right to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy, causes, in France as elsewhere, a collective stupefaction.
No doubt the event was foreseeable. Over the long term, since the 1980s, this specific right has been the privileged target of the conservative legal school. Closer to home, the replacement of the progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett, in the fall of 2020, ended up tipping the political balance of the institution to the right. In the very short term, the publication, two months ago, of a preliminary version of the Court’s majority opinion was meant to prepare people’s minds. The news nevertheless struck amazement at all those who hold the freedom to dispose of one’s body as an essential springboard in the quest for equality between men and women of all conditions. It marks a triple revolution for the Supreme Court.
L’influence de Donald Trump
The first is political. Several presidents of the United States have cherished the hope of shaping, through appointments to the Supreme Court, the collective interpretation of the Constitution. Since the beginning of the XXe century, only Franklin Roosevelt had managed, in the face of skill and favorable chances, on the strength of his unparalleled presidential longevity, to upset, over the long term, the trajectory of the jurisdiction. Conservative and quick to thwart social laws between the end of the 19e century and 1937 – under the “Lochner era” [tirant son nom d’un arrêt de 1905] –, the Court thus moved, after the war, to the forefront of progress. This was the “Warren era” [ancien président de la Cour suprême].
Despite their efforts, neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan succeeded in bringing about a reverse revolution in favor of the conservatives. Donald Trump, on this point, has taken his place in history: by replacing the conservative Antonin Scalia with three young judges with a strong conservatism – thanks to the blocking, in the Senate, of the candidacy proposed by Barack Obama at the end of his second term – moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy and progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he upset the Supreme Court. This may be his most lasting influence.
The second revolution is legal. For a long time, conservative jurists presented themselves as followers of “jurisdictional restraint”, anxious to rigorously apply the texts, in contrast to progressive judges whom they accused of “activism”. By a singular reversal, whatever the conservative majority of the Court may say, this activism changed sides with the Dobbs judgment. vs Jackson.
You have 56.51% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
Rrarely a court decision has aroused such a resounding global echo. The Dobbs Judgment vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization, by which the Supreme Court of the United States of America has just abandoned the federal constitutional protection of the right to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy, causes, in France as elsewhere, a collective stupefaction.
No doubt the event was foreseeable. Over the long term, since the 1980s, this specific right has been the privileged target of the conservative legal school. Closer to home, the replacement of the progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg by the conservative Amy Coney Barrett, in the fall of 2020, ended up tipping the political balance of the institution to the right. In the very short term, the publication, two months ago, of a preliminary version of the Court’s majority opinion was meant to prepare people’s minds. The news nevertheless struck amazement at all those who hold the freedom to dispose of one’s body as an essential springboard in the quest for equality between men and women of all conditions. It marks a triple revolution for the Supreme Court.
L’influence de Donald Trump
The first is political. Several presidents of the United States have cherished the hope of shaping, through appointments to the Supreme Court, the collective interpretation of the Constitution. Since the beginning of the XXe century, only Franklin Roosevelt had managed, in the face of skill and favorable chances, on the strength of his unparalleled presidential longevity, to upset, over the long term, the trajectory of the jurisdiction. Conservative and quick to thwart social laws between the end of the 19e century and 1937 – under the “Lochner era” [tirant son nom d’un arrêt de 1905] –, the Court thus moved, after the war, to the forefront of progress. This was the “Warren era” [ancien président de la Cour suprême].
Despite their efforts, neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan succeeded in bringing about a reverse revolution in favor of the conservatives. Donald Trump, on this point, has taken his place in history: by replacing the conservative Antonin Scalia with three young judges with a strong conservatism – thanks to the blocking, in the Senate, of the candidacy proposed by Barack Obama at the end of his second term – moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy and progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he upset the Supreme Court. This may be his most lasting influence.
The second revolution is legal. For a long time, conservative jurists presented themselves as followers of “jurisdictional restraint”, anxious to rigorously apply the texts, in contrast to progressive judges whom they accused of “activism”. By a singular reversal, whatever the conservative majority of the Court may say, this activism changed sides with the Dobbs judgment. vs Jackson.
You have 56.51% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.