We Dissent: Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court's Decision Banning Abortion

by Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor (From an Idea by)

Overview

The full text of one of the most radical and controversial Supreme Court decisions in American history, highlighting the galvanizing dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan ...

Dobbs v Jackson, the landmark decision to overthrow the rights first granted to women in the Roe v Wade decision fifty years ago, is the first U.S. Supreme Court decision in American history to actually take away from citizens a Constitutionally-protected right. As such it may be the most consequential Court ruling ever.

Compounding matters, the decision opened the door to the overthrow of still further rights — such as same-sex marriage, for example, or equal rights for trans people.

Nowhere is the danger of this decision made more clear than in the sobering yet electrifying dissent filed by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That dissent is highlighted in this edition, which includes the entire decision, to let readers decide for themselves, but forefronts the stirring and eloquently reasoned dissent.

That eloquence will surely inspire, inform, and fuel the increasingly impassioned debate during the tumultuous campaign season of the upcoming mid-term elections — and beyond.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781685890513
Publisher:	Melville House Publishing
Publication date:	09/06/2022
Pages:	224
Sales rank:	339,756
Product dimensions:	5.40(w) x 8.20(h) x 0.80(d)

About the Author

Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer served on the US Supreme Court from 1994 through June 20, 2022.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has served on the US Supreme Court since 2009.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has served on the US Supreme Court since 2010.

Editorial Reviews

"This publication’s chief assets are its portability and, for readers who disagree with the majority as fervently as the dissenting justices do, the bolstering reassurance that at least someone understands the bedrock need for bodily autonomy as a prerequisite of liberty before they tackle the majority opinion, penned by Samuel Alito." — Kirkus Reviews

"Read it, weep and take it to the street." — Ms. Magazine

From the Publisher

2022-08-16
A bound copy of the text of the dissenting opinions in the recent watershed case.

As the title (printed in massive letters on the cover) hints, the dissenting opinion fronts this publication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That is the only change made to the text, which is freely available on the court’s website. The book contains no annotations nor any other concessions to lay readers, who will find themselves picking their way through the document’s many impenetrable citations—e.g., “See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 42, 47–49).” This publication’s chief assets are its portability and, for readers who disagree with the majority as fervently as the dissenting justices do, the bolstering reassurance that at least someone understands the bedrock need for bodily autonomy as a prerequisite of liberty before they tackle the majority opinion, penned by Samuel Alito. (Readers accustomed to the conventions of legal writing may not blink at his sevenfold repetition that Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong,” but to lay readers it layers on the spite.) While literary gems are few, some passages may elicit a hollow chuckle or two. At one point, the dissenters mock Alito’s assertion that other rights associated with Roe, such as the right to contraception or marriage equality, are not at risk: “The majority tells everyone not to worry. It can (so it says) neatly extract the right to choose from the constitutional edifice without affecting any associated rights. (Think of someone telling you that the Jenga tower simply will not collapse.)” The unavoidable result of beginning with the dissent, however, is that readers will be faced with not only the majority opinion, but also the three concurrences—Clarence Thomas’ (strident), Brett Kavanaugh’s (vacuous), and John Roberts’ (insipid)—before finishing the book.

Like eating dessert first, if your idea of dessert is despair flavored with rage.

Kirkus Reviews