OPINION:
Notably, Roe v. Wade placed the individual’s right to privacy above states’ rights to limit abortion. Now the Supreme Court has decided state sovereign authority prevails over the individual’s constitutional protection from double jeopardy (“Supreme Court rules states, feds can prosecute for the same crime,” Web, June 17).
The decision highlights a conflict in precedent regarding the ability of state sovereign authority or states’ rights to supersede constitutional protections of individuals. Considering that the current ruling stresses 170 years of precedents supporting states’ rights as a matter of sovereign authority over individual constitutional protections, Roe v. Wade stands in conflict with the concept of state sovereign authority, thereby making that landmark ruling open to legal challenge.
In supporting the 7-2 Supreme Court majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor may have helped open the door on Roe v. Wade. But the decision highlights the potential danger of the court deciding precedent based on current issues rather than arm’s-length legal analysis.
Of course, none of this would preclude taking Paul Manafort to Guantanamo Bay to determine whether he can identify any detainees from his time in Ukraine, or granting him pardon and release there.
WILLIAM T. FIDURSKI
Clark, N.J.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.