Rikelman has a really pedantic speaking style. Thomas gets her to confirm that “bodily integrity” and the right to control family formation are her bases for defending Roe. Nobody is trying to anchor this to anything even vaguely referenced in the Constitution.
Rikelman's argument at the end of her opening statement (though I think grievously wrong) is certainly a proper one to make before a legislature.
“Two generations have now relied on this right,” says Julie Rikelman. Well, the ones that have survived it have.
Kavanaugh led Stewart into making the clear distinction between the Constitution prohibiting abortion or making it a right. He confirms Mississippi is arguing that the Constitution is neutral on abortion. As Scalia succinctly put it in his Casey dissent: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so”
The last 45 minutes has neatly confirmed that everybody involved knows full well that Roe is nonsense — Casey, too — and that the debate is really over whether it would be a good or bad thing to admit it.
Barrett: stare decisis “is the core of this case.” She asks if public reaction should be part of the stare decisis calculus. Stewart talks about how Casey itself was wrong, but says that “our legitimacy really derives from our willingness to stand strong” and “overrule when it's appropriate.”
Stewart denies that the Court should order states to prohibit abortion, and tilts toward the view that the Constitution is neutral on abortion policy. I think the truth of the matter is that the Constitution, properly understood, is not neutral on the question, but the implications of the Constitution for abortion policy can't mainly be vindicated by the courts. If you're interested, read this: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-31/abortion-and-the-constitution-what-if-a-fetus-has-14th-amendment-rights?sref=XcONO5zf
Barrett points out that there have been a few major instances in which the Court overruled its previous decisions, noting that stare decisis doesn’t preclude the Court from doing so when it’s necessary.
Barrett: Was Casey right to take into account public reaction as part of stare decisis considerations?
Stewart: No distinct set of considerations in “watershed” case. Casey's discussion was mistaken.
Liberal justices are done now. I'm surprised how ineffective their questioning was.