Alito’s Footnote 10

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Kaimi says:

    Dave,

    I’m curious to your thoughts as to what extent Alito’s memo would apply to the right to abortion, post-Casey.

    Roe, after all, was (maybe rightly) rightly criticized for its general overbreadth and its reliance on quickly outdated science. (Not to mention that it was not exactly a monument of great logical argument — Blackmun was not one of the court’s great writers).

    However, the court took a stab at fixing many of Roe’s problems qua Roe — not qua abortion-as-a-right — in Casey. (Opinions differ on the question of how well Casey succeeded).

    Alito mentions “the case against Roe v. Wade” –but that is not necessarily the same as “the case against a constitutional right to abortion.”

  2. SCOTUSblog says:

    Blog Round-Up – Saturday, December 3rd

    In nomination news: Here is Concurring Opinions on Judge Alito’s footnote 10. In a June 3, 1985, strategy memo to then Solicitor General Charles Fried on Thornburgh v. American College of Obstreticians Judge Alito wrote, in footnote 10: The case…

  3. SCOTUSblog says:

    Blog Round-Up – Saturday, December 3rd

    Here is Concurring Opinions on Judge Alito’s footnote 10. In a June 3, 1985, strategy memo to then Solicitor General Charles Fried on Thornburgh v. American College of Obstreticians Judge Alito wrote, in footnote 10: The case against Roe v….

  4. Joe says:

    Is stare decisis and the rule of law, two cornerstones of our judicial system, somehow bad ways to defend precedents that no compelling reason is supplied to alter?

    In fact, just how broadly is the right of privacy reaffirmed in Part II of the decision being attacked by Alito here? Prof. Ely was no big fan of the reasoning of Griswold. Thus, the potential breadth of Alito’s opposition to “this long-recognized and essential element of personal liberty” is only more notable.

  5. jim says:

    Casey did significantly erode, modify, and weaken Roe since Casey said that the right to abortion is no longer fundamental but rather is a completely new right that was hitherto unknown whereby it is deserving of undue burden review, a standard of review which was also completely unknown and hitherto nonexistent in constitutional law.

  6. More Reasons to Fear Judge Alito?

    I continue to become more and more worried….