Supreme Court Oral Arguments [19-1392] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Dec 1, 2021
Scott G. Stewart advocates for the Petitioners, while Julie Rikelman and Elizabeth B. Prelogar represent the Respondents and the U.S., respectively. They dive deep into the constitutional foundations of Roe v. Wade, the implications of the Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks, and the evolving nature of viability as a legal standard. The conversation also touches on women's autonomy, the historical context of abortion rights, and the potential consequences of restrictive legislation on marginalized communities. Prepare for an insightful legal showdown!
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Roe and Casey's Lack of Constitutional Basis
- Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have no constitutional basis, harming the democratic process and hindering compromise.
- They have kept the Supreme Court at the center of a political battle it cannot resolve.
Casey's Emphasis on Principle Over Pressure
- The Casey ruling acknowledged the division regarding Roe v. Wade, emphasizing the importance of the Court's decisions to be grounded in principle, not social or political pressures.
- Overruling under pressure would undermine the Court's legitimacy and the rule of law.
Viability Line's Importance for Court's Legitimacy
- The viability line established in Casey has remained unchallenged, unlike the undue burden standard.
- Overturning Roe and Casey would create a perception that constitutional interpretation is merely political maneuvering, threatening the Court's survival.