Posted on 12/01/2021 7:04:04 AM PST by Cboldt
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Gorsuch is making a very good point about the undue burden standard being difficult to apply and how it fits within Stare Decisis. He might have just trapped her in opposing the undue burden standard. Unfortunately he seems very deferential to her answer.
John Adams Quotes
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.….
We have the other now in the USA by a factor of way too many.
Kavanaugh seems to be arguing for middle ground.
I’m thinking 15 weeks excepting the life of the mother. It’s getting obvious.
Wow, Kavanaugh is making the strongest argument of any justice against a viability standard!
Alito getting frustrated
I think that’s exactly where this is headed.
Roberts very clearly seems to be leaning toward removing viability as the line, reworking Roe and Casey to announce a new version of “undue burden.”
I think it is very possible that they move the line in accordance with Mississippi law, and Mississippi wins, but Roe and Casey stand as reworked.
Roberts says he just found Breyer’s comments “compelling”. Now he is going into the idea that unpopular decisions may have “super Stare Decisis”. Is he trying to trap the opposing counsel or is he trying to shore up her argument?
Thomas,Gorsish and Alito would overturn Roe.
My mistake, that was probably Alito. Kavanaugh may not have spoken yet.
However, in that very same question he said that Casey said nothing about viability.
I think Casey will be overturned, but Roe will stand.
Alito nailed it! The woman and baby have the same interests pre and post viability, so why is viability so important? The Abortion attorney couldn’t answer.
Shut up Bryer.
Breyer trying to add a new argument for the pro-abortion side.
How did he make that argument? If you could explain in real simple terms for those of us who are legally challenged. Thank you!
Not sure what Thomas’s point was.
Rikelman said something to the effect that the constitution (the constitution) now rejects the notion of a woman’s proper role being that of mother.
Kavanaugh brings up the notion of SCOTUS taking a side at all.
Not sure who was speaking, but I don’t know why he is going back to the establishment of the 14th amendment and contemporaneous laws that allowed abortion before quickening. He didn’t sound friendly to the pro-life side. Who was that?
I’m not an attorney but he’s trying to distill the issue to something other than stare décisis, the sacred cow of the abortion position in this case. I think he’s opening up for states to consider the fundamental questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.