n a thoughtful recent post, co-blogger Stephen Sachs responds to my own post arguing that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Texas' SB 8 anti-abortion law creates greater slippery-slope risks than a ruling against it. My post, in turn, was in part a response to Steve's earlier post on the same topic.
In his latest contribution to the debate, Steve explains that his concern is not about slippery slopes, but about "principles":
The demand for a limiting principles is part of a demand for principles—a demand that the Court be principled in reaching its decision, that its judgment follow from premises that it's willing to defend in other cases too.
I agree that such principles are important. But my - and others' - concern about the slippery slope risks created by SB 8 is ultimately a concern about the threat posed to a vital principle. The principle at stake is that state governments cannot gut judicial protection for a constitutional right. For reasons explained in my earlier post (and highlighted by several justices during the oral argument), if Texas prevails in this case, it and other states could use similar tools to undermine a wide range of other constitutional rights, including gun rights, property rights, free speech rights, and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment