I. Discuss your theory as to why Justices Rehnquist and White dissented, as well as why Justice Rehnquist also wrote a separate dissent. Think about why they felt it necessary to dissent. What reasons did Justices White and Rehnquist state for disagreeing with the majority?

Justices Rehnquist and White dissented for the simple definition of dissent: they had an “explicit disagreement of one or more judges of a court with the decision passed by the majority upon a case before them.” (Black’s, 2014). The Justices dissented together in that the language of the Constitution does not support the decision given by the Court and they both felt that the Court had overstepped its boundaries in the use of its express powers when is used one case to squash the all existing state statutes. Such a sensitive issue should be left to the individual bodies of people and their lower governing establishments.

Justice Rehnquist went on to write a separate more detailed dissent because he had other disagreements with the Court’s decision. These disagreements covered areas such as lack of clarity in the initial case facts, decision rendered outside of facts pertaining specifically to this case and misuse of the liberty of right of privacy as afforded under the 4th Amendment with proper due process. The case facts did not specify as to which trimester Roe was in at filing. This single case against TX statute was used to strike down all the laws not just the ones involving this particular set of facts. All women’s rights were affected, not just those of Roe. The Justice felt that the plaintiff’s claim to right of privacy was erroneously applied outside of its normal realm therefore removing the proper use of the compelling interest test, thereby removing such power from individual legislatures.

II. Discuss your thoughts about whether Justices White and Rehnquist successfully supported their dissenting views.

I think that both Justices successfully supported their dissenting views. These views were supported by case law. I believe they were able to agree on the commonality that the High Court overstepped its bounds by taking this decision from the legislative level of the states. These discussions probably led to Justice Rehnquist’s more in-depth view of the issue. He was tactical and objective in his approach. He looked at the case presented and the decision rendered objectively piece by piece. I believe he was able to set emotion and personal morals aside. This enabled him to have a clear abstract view. Being a woman, mother and student of the laws of this great country, I can understand all sides.

Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).