Anonymous wrote:Prelogar and Rickelman are killing it.

But maybe that doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a first amendment separation of church and state issue. Life begins at conception is a religious-based belief, isn't it? If you don't believe that, then why should the state be able to require you adhere to a religious belief you don't accept?

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

No, the point is that the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion (just like her decision to use birth control) is protected by the Constitution.[/quot

Uggg. Yes. Just like the constitution protects free speech. But there are lots of state and local rules regarding speech. Here, the states have been testing Casey all over the map. Some have put in place very restrictive rules. A likely violation of Casey. Others, like Virginia, allow abortion very late in pregnancy. Also likely a violation of Casey. So the Supremes are being asked to go ahead and let the each state decide for themselves. To day “we are out— we aren’t legislators.” That is what Mississippi wants. The pro-choice position is seeking the court to reiterate that it has to be tied to viability. But, that is because that is the only reasonable way to protect the constitutional rights of the woman AND the child. But that can be done at the state level too and that is what the justices are grappling with.

Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

Right. It's frustrating that Dems have already squandered so many opportunities where they held clear majorities to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.

They need to be careful. If they overturn stare decisis and start the slippery slope that some Constitutional rights can be abridged, you can bet that there will be new restrictions on 2A from liberal states. If SCOTUS determines that RvW can be abridged, then there is no protection for 2A any longer. As long as the right to bear arms is preserved, states can then instituted many restrictions on what types of guns, how to register guns, when and where users are allowed to carry, etc.

If stare decisis no longer protects Roe or Casey, then it definitely will not protect Heller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.

They need to be careful. If they overturn stare decisis and start the slippery slope that some Constitutional rights can be abridged, you can bet that there will be new restrictions on 2A from liberal states. If SCOTUS determines that RvW can be abridged, then there is no protection for 2A any longer. As long as the right to bear arms is preserved, states can then instituted many restrictions on what types of guns, how to register guns, when and where users are allowed to carry, etc.

If stare decisis no longer protects Roe or Casey, then it definitely will not protect Heller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prelogar and Rickelman are killing it.

But maybe that doesn't matter.

Rikelman is an incredible attorney. Her presentation style is so smooth, effortlessly parrying critiques from the Justices. Really impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

Right. It's frustrating that Dems have already squandered so many opportunities where they held clear majorities to do that.

The House already passed it, the Senate filibustered it.

This year.

Not the Dems fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

Right. It's frustrating that Dems have already squandered so many opportunities where they held clear majorities to do that.

The House already passed it, the Senate filibustered it.

This year.

Not the Dems fault.

Anonymous wrote:If the SC overturns Roe, is stare decisis basically a dead doctrine in American jurisprudence? Does precedent no longer matter?

It seems like this decision is MUCH, MUCH bigger than Roe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.

No, the point is that the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion (just like her decision to use birth control) is protected by the Constitution.