The yin to David French’s yang, lawyer Kreesa Lancaster gives us her perspective on how and why the Supreme Court came to the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. Along the way, Kreesa breaks down the legalese, explaining such terms as substantive due process, stare decisis, and strict constructionism / originalism, for good measure. But we also discuss why all the legal wonkery can be a distraction from what’s really at play here — and what Americans need to be paying attention to. 

Check out our ‘Inscrutable’ newsletter for thoughts and rants. To support us and gain access to exclusive content, consider becoming a paid member of Uncertain on Substack. Follow @UncertainPod on your social media of choice.

On the agenda:

-Why we’re having this conversation now [0:00-4:07}

-On leaks and legal disclaimers [4:08-7:09]

-Substantive due process. What the f**k? [7:10-11:03]

-Privacy: an unenumerated right [11:04-14:28] 

-Understanding originalism / strict constructionism [14:29-25:24]

-Stare decisis and Roe’s impact [25:25-30:43] 

-Silver (or grayish?) linings [30:44-36:06] 

-Dissecting Dobbs v. Jackson [36:07-38:57] 

-The Supreme Court's five-prong test [38:58-50:29] 

-The veneer of legitimacy [50:30-1:01:43] 

-In Alito's shoes [1:01:44-1:09:50] 

-Deciding to come on the podcast [1:09:51-1:13:26]

-What Dobbs means in practice [1:13:27-1:25:46]

-Creating a culture of choice [1:25:47-1:41:35] 

-Other rulings in peril [1:41:36-1:50:02]

Uncertain Things is hosted and produced by Adaam James Levin-Areddy and Vanessa M. Quirk. For more doomsday rumination, subscribe to: uncertain.substack.com.