SG invokes women's “reliance” interest. Gets interrupted by Breyer going back to Casey's stare decisis discussion.
Is there anyone other than Breyer who respects Casey's discussion?
Defenders of abortion, including the two attorneys arguing against Mississippi’s law, speak about pregnancy a) as if it simply “happens” to women spontaneously without their knowledge or consent and b) as if it were an aggressive form of cancer.
Sotomayor: All or nearly all of Kavanaugh's list of overruled cases involved overrulings that expanded rights.
Now we're getting a civics lecture from Sotomayor.
According to the pro-Roe side, the right to abortion is everywhere in the Constitution, even though it can be found nowhere.
I understand that the arguments before the Court have to pretend otherwise, but come on, it doesn't adhere to any supposed (well-developed, consistently applied) “principles of stare decisis” as Prelogar is saying.
So far, big puzzle is to sort out what Chief's questions might indicate. He seems to be saying that viability line has been dicta all along.
Prelogar, the Solicitor General, is now focusing on the consequences of overruling. Thomas asks again what exactly the right is. SG gives a laundry list.
Barrett is cleverly making Rikelman argue against her interest, putting her in a position of defending indefensible viability on stare decisis grounds, as better than an absolute protection through two trimesters — adopting which, Rikelman knows, would show that the Court would be legislating, not interpreting the Constitution.
SG: Court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental.