Replies

BREAKING LIVE:

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument

Dobbs v. Jackson - Abortion Law Case https://t.co/ZUmZHcDBks— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) December 1, 2021
Not going to fully live-tweet this hearing, but will share highlights as things unfold.

MS AG Scott Stewart begins with an appeal to the justices to think of the court's public perception, saying abortion has kept SCOTUS at the "center of a political battle it can never resolve"— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) December 1, 2021
Breyer delivers a monologue quoting from sections of Casey about how the bar should be extremely high for overturning a case like Roe, that the court should have to show that such a decision is rooted in principle and not social/political pressure. "What do you say to that?"
Stewart talks about how Casey (establishing the viability line) didn't end up having a "calming" effect, unlike other controversial decisions. Sotomayor jumps in to note that the viability line hasn't been at issue in those 30 years
Sotomayor: "The right of a woman to choose, the right to control her own body, has been clearly set forth since Casey and never challenged. You want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different."
Sotomayor pushes Stewart to explain what's changed in 30 yrs that warrants revisiting viability. Stewart brings up advancements in science/medicine, re: fetal pain, and Sotomayor knocks that down, saying it reflects a minority view that wouldn't survive a trial standard (Daubert)
Stewart backs away from that a bit, saying really the fundamental problem with viability is it's not tethered to anything in history, the Constitution. Sotomayor isn't into this line of argument either: "There's so much that's not in the Constitution."
Kagan picks up the thread from Sotomayor and Breyer to emphasize that nothing meaningful has changed since Roe and Casey that would warrant revisiting the legal principles, but what's different now is that everyone has relied on this case law for decades
The theme from Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan is that any decision to reverse or roll back Roe and Casey and blow up the viability line would be rooted in political, social, and religious reasons, and that's not how the court is supposed to work and will only hurt public perception
Kavanaugh asks a line of quick Qs having Stewart make clear they're not arguing SCOTUS has the authority to ban abortion, and that reversing Roe would mean some states could still allow abortion. Stewart says that's right, it would be up to the states and the people to decide
The Kavanaugh questions seem aimed at preemptively addressing the public outcry that will come if the court gives the green light to states that already have made clear they will immediately adopt abortion bans and are just waiting on the court to act
Roberts signals that he's open to keeping some kind of line and not reversing Roe outright, but making it earlier than viability — why isn't 15 weeks reasonable, he asks Julie Rikelman, counsel for the MS clinic
Rikelman says going from 24 weeks to 15 weeks is a huge difference. Roberts tried to draw int'l comparisons, Rikelman notes there are much higher barriers to abortion in the US, so if the court wants to push back the line, it makes abortion far less accessible in many ways
Alito asks a string of questions aimed at probing whether the viability line is arbitrary, and talks about need to balance a fetus's "interest in having a life." Rikelman says viability establishes a legally objective standard that stays away from more philosophical questions
Roberts probes idea that Roe is "super" precedent and whether that concept creates an odd situation where the court feels compelled to uphold its most unpopular decisions. Rikelman says it's precedent on precedent - that is, incorporated in decades of subsequent case law

To be continued!