in our society. this is what the court decided, this is what we will follow. that we won t be able to survive if people believe that everything, including new york versus sullivan, i could name any other set of rights, including the second amendment, by the way. there are many political people the court errored in seeing this as a personal right as opposed to a militia right. if people it s all political, how will we survive? how will the courts survive? justice sotomayor, i think the concern about appearing political makes it absolutely bertive that the court reach a decision well-grounded on the structure and tradition and that carefully goes through the stare decisis factors. casey did that? no, it didn t. casey did through every one
say. really? yeah. they used to be more polite. i have to say, the court over the last few years has gotten a bit more sharp in their questioning. and even sometimes to each other, and making digs at each other. that s an unfortunate trend. but i think for the most part, you ll hear a respectful discussion of the issues between the advocates and the court. maybe the most important thing to think about is when the justices are asking a question, they re not necessarily wanting to hear the answer from the advocate. they re making a point to one of the other justices. and so you as the advocate have to just understand, you re guiding a conversation more than like giving a speech and saying why you re right. and that s where that listening skill is so important. can you figure out what the justice is trying to say to her or his colleagues. so it s not only the question, but also what may be behind the question, vis-a-vis another magistrate. exactly. it s 3-d chess. that s very in
on here. may i ask you a question about starry desigh sis? your colleagues on the other side have emphasized casey rejected roe s trimester framework and replaced it with an undue burden standard. they argue the undue burden standard was not well-known to the law before that. and then they argue that the undue burden standard has evolved over time too in ways the court has found difficult to agree upon. in hellerstat they point out in briefs the court seems to suggest the court should consider both the benefits and the burdens imposed with the restriction. the court splintered on that same question whether benefits could be considered or only burdens. and so the argument goes that this has proved to be putting
to prevent people from thinking that this court is a political institution that will go back and forth, depending on what part of the public yells loud est and preventing people from thinking that the court will go back and forth, depending on changes to the court s membership. and what strikes me about this case, and you come here very honestly, saying, you know, we want you to discard the entire set-up, and if you don t do that, we want you to discard the viability line, casey says is the heart, the central principle of roe. and so, usually, there has to be a justification, a strong justification in a case like this, beyond the fact that you
appropriate for the court to say, enough, as it has in some of the the great overrulings in brown and in other cases where it said, this is enough. justice harlan had it right in dissent in plessey when he recognized that all are all and similarly, the state should be able to recognize, there are real values on both sides. we think that this one slightly outweighs or this one slightly outweighs or there s some balance to be drawn here. but if the court doesn t do that, justice kagan, it will be continued damage and the court will continue to apologize in this issue. i apologize, mr. chief justice. i ve gone that s all right. i have a few little well, not little, i hope, questions. and it first gets back to the issue of viability. you know, in your petition for a cert, your first question was will all pre-viability on elective abortions are constitutional? and i think it s fair to say