isn t a substantial obstacle nothing would be. the issue was before the court and the court said at page 879 in adopting the undue burden test it was not disturbing the viability line. a very interesting question. i think justice barrett raised, too. usually just philosophical but i think it has bite here. when i read casey, it is not just one-on-one, two is greater than one. casey plus roe is greater than roe. they are making a point that we are an institution perhaps more than a court of appeals. or a district court. it is hamilton s point. no purse, no sword, and yet we have to have public support and that comes primarily, says
is it your argument that a case can never be overruled simply because it was wrong? i think that at the very least the state would have to come forward with some kind of materially changed circumstance or some kind of new argument and mississippi hasn t done so. suppose plessy was argued and nothing changed. you could say it was a wrong decision on the day it was handed down and now overreeled. it was very wrong on the day it was handed down but what the court said in analyzing that to brown and casey was that what had become clear is that the factual premise that underlay the decision. is it your answer that we need all the experience from
justice harry blackman, the author of roe, came up with as a measure that he sort of pulled out of the air in order to accommodate the competing interests and then flashing forward to casey, in casey what hadn t even been argued in roe suddenly became the central feature of roe. and i think what roberts was underscoring here is that this whole thing has been built on really a very, very shaky, almost non-existent foundation, which does on one hand you would say maybe that means you should toss the whole thing. but i agree with john that where roberts seemed to be heading was to say look, we have a very narrow question before us here. much more narrow than the parties seem to be arguing. is 15 weeks an okay regulation? harris: or is any an okay
acquires certain standards. it has changed and may continue to change. no, it is principled. in ordering the interest of state the court had to set a line between conception and birth and looked at the fetus s ability to survive separately as a legal line verifiable and doesn t require the court to resolve the philosophical issues at stake. i want to focus on stare decisis. i found justty breyer s comments quite compelling. i m not quite sure how they play out in casey. it is certainly true that we cannot base our decisions on whether they are popular or not with the people. casey seemed to say we shouldn t base our decisions not only on that, but whether
certainly the case that not every woman in america has needed to exercise this right or wanted to but one in four american women have had an abortion. for thoefs women the rights secured by roe and casey are critical in insuring they can control their bodies and lives. i have think there is a second dimension to it that casey also properly recognized and that s the societal dimension. that s the understanding of our society even thoef though this has been a controversial decision. every person in america knows what this court held and know how the court defined this concept of liberty for women and what control they ll have in the situation of a unplanned pregnancy. for the court to reverse course now i think would run counter to that societal reliance and the very concept we have of what equality is guaranteed to women in this country. it is certainly true that