it back to john heilemann s point. we are in the same place except the republicans on the supreme court are not the same as the republican appointees on that supreme court. these republican appointed justices do not appear open to the possibility of preserving precedent. of preserving roe. so we are just talking about how badly it will be decimated. to come back to justice sotomayor s point, what do they do about the stench of now being clearly seeing and acting as a political body. i think it s a thing they are looking at. the legitimacy of the supreme court is for sure on the line. and to the point of not much changing in these last five decades, it is still the case that pregnancy is a situation that can be dangerous. i say this as someone who had high-risk pregnancies. so that idea that it is just sort of a cavalier no big deal
seen instances where they ask tone deaf questions and what they are trying to tease out an answer they can t make their point of view, and they ask questions where they know the answer is going to be and they are trying to get the answer on the record. i don t know if that s the case in this ep stance but i have seen that many times on the supreme court. the justices are looking for is there an intermediatia standard because mississippi is now in a full-on way saying it is time to reverse roe versus wade. right. one possible interpretation of the question is they are searching for an answer that says there is no intermediate, it is all or nothing in let me play justice kagan as well. i guess what strikes me when i look at this case is that, you know, not much has changed since roe and casey, that people think it s right or wrong based on the
we won t find out until the court render its opinion. in your personal view, what is the best case scenario right now? if you believe that women should be full participants in our society and have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, and i certainly ascribe to both of those views, then this was not a good argument. i mean, it s a little bit dangerous to predict the outcome of a case based on argument. typically you will hear people like me decline to do that because we believe the justices will try issues and arguments on for size. and sometimes the opinion they issue doesn t really look anything like the viewpoints that they seem the espouse during argument. today, though, the view seemed a little bit more honed and a little bit more narrowed. justice kavanaugh was very clear as he talked about returning rights to the people adopting the language used by mississippi. so it s hard to believe that the outcome here is anything short of, if not reversing roe versus
from exercising the constitutional right merely because of the number of people in the category and that s just not how constitutional rights work. a state would never say that it could ban religious services on a wednesday evening, for example, simply because most people could attend religious services on another night of the week. i wanted to that s helpful, i think. i want to make sure i understand what you re telling me. that if the court were to, in this case, step past viability and apply undue burden, the undue burden test to regulations prior to viability, you would agree with the other side, i think, that that s not a workable standard. is that a fair understanding of what you re telling the court? no, your honor. you think that would be workable? i believe if i may clarify, i believe the undue burden has been workable for regulations. i understand that. if it were to apply if the court were to i thought this
there were two fundamental things going on in the case today. one was this is about personal liberty, about constitutional liberty about women in america. and on the merits of the case, that s what it s about. but the second piece going on that we heard articulated by the justices in their questioning is this issue of the court s prec precedent. that pertains to the fact of is the court going to overturn these 50 years of history going back to roe in addition to the past almost 30 years when that case was reaffirmed in the casey case. and what is fascinating about it is that, you know, elections have consequences and life events have consequences. this would have been a very different case, and this would have been a very different hearing if not for the death of ruth bader ginsberg and donald trump s appointment of casey barrett. they made their 50-week law just