watch this. is roe a super precedent? how would you define super precedent? i m answering a lot of questions about roe and scholars across the spectrum says that doesn t mean roe should be over while ever ruled but descriptively it not a case that everyone accepted and doesn t call for it over ruling. as a judge, it is an important precedent of the supreme court, by it, i mean row vark v wade, casey is precedent on priest dent, which itself is an important factor. senator, as the book explains, the supreme court of the united states has held in roe versus wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th amendment and the book explains that. do you accept that? that s the law of the land. i accept the law of the land, senator, yes.
bait and switch, i pulled this from their confirmation hearings about what they had to say about roe. i would tell you that roe versus wade decided in 1973, the united states supreme court, it has been reaffirmed so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy of treatment as precedent. as a judge, it is an important precedent of the supreme court, casey is precedent on precedent. roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased but that doesn t mean that roe should be overruled. it just means that it doesn t fall on the small handful of cases like brown versus the board. in every case in which there s a prior precedent, the