Bravo to Justice Samuel Alito for drafting an opinion anyone can understand and that a majority will agree with.  Alito confines himself to short words and simple sentences while conveying profound arguments.  Perhaps the most profound statement he makes is his acknowledgment that abortion laws should be made at the state level.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.  “The permissibility of abortion, and limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.  Cashed, 505 U. S. at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgement in part and dissenting in part).  That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

Humility in Washington is rarer than hens’ teeth and needed more than ever.  Not only doesn’t Alito tell the state what can and cannot be done, but he also looks to the case in question and almost seems annoyed that the bureaucracy would dare the court to reverse Roe and Casey.

…The State of Mississippi asks us to uphold the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits an abortion after the fifteenth week of pregnancy -- several weeks before the point at which a fetus is now regarded as “viable” outside the womb.  In defending this law, the State’s primary argument is that we should reconsider and overrule Roe and Casey and once again allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens with.  On the other side, respondents and the solicitor general ask us to reaffirm Roe and Casey, and they contend that the Mississippi law cannot stand if we do so.  Allowing Mississippi to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, they argue, “would be no different than overruling Casey and Roe entirely.” They contend that “no half-measures” are available and that we must either reaffirm or overrule Roe and Casey.

Overruling looks to be fine to Alito, four other justices, and a growing number of Americans -- young and old.  So far there’s been few in the mainstream media that actually encourage Americans to read the opinion -- likely in part because they don’t want Americans to understand that the Mississippi statute allows for first-term abortions.  The Alito rule would allow the states to determine the rules.  So, California, New York, and other states would likely have nary a restriction.  Of course, the opposite would also be true.

But make no mistake -- the biggest earthquake in Washington isn’t dumping Roe and Casey -- it’s questioning the administrative state.  Again, the narrative will be “don’t read this ruling.”  Abortion has become the foundation that the establishment rests upon. Anyone who reads Alito, can’t help but ask, “If abortion isn’t in the constitution and that means that it’s a state issue, couldn’t that also apply to environmental law?  Health care?  Employment?  Does the federal government really have the right to rule on every pond and puddle?  Why does a bureaucrat decide the mileage and type of automobile I drive?  In northern Michigan, our cold winters reduce battery life by half and we’ll be forced to buy them?  Where’s that in the Constitution?

We end this opinion where we began.  Abortion presents a profound moral question.  The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.  Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.  We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

Go ahead -- replace Roe and Casey with, say, one of the hundreds of unconstitutional, intrusive federal rules and regulations we are forced to deal with daily.  Notice how well they fit.  Elon Musk is threatening the power of big tech to monopolize public debate -- and diminishing centralization.  Maybe he and Alito have had a Vulcan mind meld of sorts.

Image: Fred Schilling, Supreme Court