Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 40 (1999)

Page:   Index   Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40

528

SAENZ v. ROE

Thomas, J., dissenting

teenth Amendment jurisprudence, I would be open to reevaluating its meaning in an appropriate case. Before invoking the Clause, however, we should endeavor to understand what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought that it meant. We should also consider whether the Clause should displace, rather than augment, portions of our equal protection and substantive due process jurisprudence. The major-ity's failure to consider these important questions raises the specter that the Privileges or Immunities Clause will become yet another convenient tool for inventing new rights, limited solely by the "predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court." Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 502 (1977).

I respectfully dissent.

Page:   Index   Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40

Last modified: October 4, 2007