WE DISSENT

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.