lawrence. but in thinking about that which is the core of this case, how should we be thinking about it? justice breyer pointed out that in casey and in some respects it was a different conception of that concept insofar as it explicitly took into account public reaction. is that a factor that you accept or are you arguing that we should minimize that factor and is there a different set of rules that is true that casey identified brown and west coast hotel as watershed decisions? but is there a distinct set of those considerations applicable to what the court might decide as a watershed decision. i don t think there should be a distinct set of considerations there, your honor. what i emphasized and just to make sure on the kind of legitimacy the court looking outward, i think casey was unusual in that regard. i have think it was a mistake and i think it s something in
states, majority of states or states still could and presumably would continue to freely allow abortion, many states, some states would be able to do that even if you prevail under your view, is that correct? that s consistent with our view, your honor. it allows all interests to have full voice and many of the abortions we see in certain states that anybody to change their laws in a more restrictive direction. thank you, your honor. bill: justice barrett. i have a question that is a little bit of a follow up to one justice breyer was asking you. it s about stari decis has been about the benefits of that. i don t think anyone disputes that and no one can dispute because it is part of our doctrine and it is not a command and some circumstances in which overruling is possible. brown, bowers versus hard wick,
we have plessey versus brown, bowers versus hardwick to lawrence, but, in thinking about stare decisis, which is the core of this case, how should we be thinking about it. justice breyer pointed out in casey and in some respects, well, it was a different conception of stare decisis that it very explicitly took into account public reaction. is that a factor that you accept or are you arguing that we should minimize that factor? and is there a different set of rules? it is true that casey identified brown and west coast hotel as watershed decisions. but is there a distinct set of stare decisis considerations applicable to what the court might decide as a watershed decision. i don t think there should be a distinct set of considerations there, your honor. i think what i am emphasize, and just to make sure, on the kind
choice. viability, it seems to me, doesn t have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? a lot of the colloquy you ve had with all of us has been about the benefit of stare decisis, which i don t think anyone disputes. it is true that casey identified brown and west coast hotel as watershed decisions, but is there a distinct set of considerations applicable to what the court might decide as a watershed decision? usually, there has to be a justification, a strong justification in a case like this beyond the fact that you think the case is wrong. and 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 things that
you filed eemecus briefs. what stood out to you today? i m not sure they re going to do one thing or the other. what stood out to me is how clear it was that justice thomas potentially, even justice barrett were not focusing on necessarily legal arguments but more on sort of the moralistic questions of what should happen around an unwanted pregnancy. i think justice kavanaugh is worried about stare decisis.rai states. he said this involves the rights of women compared to the rights of an unborn fetus. there s just no good answer here, other than in my mind, to uphold roe. one of the points made, maya, is if they overturn this decision and overturn this stare decisis in roe and casey, they re going to turn the court into a political institution.