[Phlyer]

This author is really very good.

Allow me to respectfully disagree. This author launches into a legal structure discussion and never once mentions the Constitution and what it says. On matters of federal authority, and specifically rights for which the federal government has authority, the first and most important question must be: What does the Constitution say? Any legal analysis that does not start there is not 'good' in my opinion.

It might be that his analysis is exactly right from a lawyer's viewpoint, but the Constitution does not start out, "We, the lawyers and judges . . . "

[BipolarBob]

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Ha!
We the People...
They the Employees.

[Blurp2]

“This author launches into a legal structure discussion and never once mentions the Constitution and what it says.”

Mmm, I don’t think he’s trying to present a full and complete analysis of Dobbs. He’s just trying to point out one aspect of it that others may not have focused on. After all, Alito’s opinion didn’t begin with a discussion of the Constitution, and I’m sure you don’t doubt it’s authoritative. People start where they imagine their audience is, and go from there.

Beyond that, no one supposes that the Constitution mentions abortion. No one supposes that it mentions stare decisis, either, but it’s a principle most judges violate at their peril. So you see it’s a lot more complicated than what the Constitution says. Sorry, probably you knew that already. Never mind.