미국 낙태죄 논쟁 — 미국 보수주의 법률가들은 Roe v. Wade 판결을 어떻게 뒤집었나? —

Abstract

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, which had been upheld since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Roe, overruled by Dobbs, had represented constitutional revolution led by liberal Justices starting from the Warren Court. Conservative lawyers have tried to put an end to judicial activism since early 1980s. This paper reviews the conservative judicial movement in terms of constitutional interpretation as well as social movement. Originalism, conservative theory of constitutional interpretation based upon the text of the Constitutional and original meaning of the text, has been developed to criticize the Warren and Burger Court’s decisions of making constitutional rights based upon a theory of living constitutionalism. Originalists argue that incorporation of current values is the obligation of the representative, not the job of the court. In Dobbs the Supreme Court delivered an opinion that Roe was egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution. Six Justices in majority opinion in Dobbs are members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Federalist Society. The Society, which was founded to promote conservative and libertarian beliefs such as limited government and judicial restraint in 1982, has grown to be the most influential legal network. Though the Society is accused of making the Court politicized, what we as foreign scholars should learn from the Society is the intellectual culture that the Society is focusing on. The Society has accumulated intellectual capital by way of reasoned debate and robust discussion.