those cases adhered to precedent in brown v. board, adhered to blessy and adhered to at kns and adhered to lochner. if the court had done that in those cases, you know, the country would be a much different place. all right, so the newest justice trump appointee amy coney barrett, she actually questioned whether so-called safe haven laws which aimed to protect abandoned newborns have now distinguished the burden of pregnancy from the burden of parenthood. watch. it s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of mother hood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haifben laws take care of that problem? it seems to me it focuses the burden much more narrowly. it doesn t seem to follow that pregnancy and parenthood are all part of the same burden. so it seems to me the choice more focused would be between say the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the
those cases adhered to precedent in brown v. board, adhered to plessy and adhered to atkins and adhered to lochner. if the court had done that in those cases, you know, the country would be a much different place. all right, so the newest justice trump appointee amy coney barrett, she actually questioned whether so-called safe haven laws which aimed to protect abandoned newborns have now distinguished the burden of pregnancy from the burden of parenthood. watch. it s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of mother hood that flow from pregnancy. why don t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? it seems to me it focuses the burden much more narrowly. it doesn t seem to follow that pregnancy and parenthood are all part of the same burden. so it seems to me the choice more focused would be between say the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the
make a family decisions and the right to physical autonomy including the right to end a pre-viability pregnancy. so it s all of the above. that s how the court interpreted the liberty clause for over 100 years in cases going back to meyer, griswald, carey, loving, lawrence. all of those come out of lochner so we ve dropped part of it. so i understand what you have are saying but what i m trying to focus on is if we is to lower the level of generality or be a little more specific. in the old days we used to say it was a right to privacy the court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay, or in substantive due process. what are we relying on now? is it privacy? is it autonomy? what is it? it continues to be liberty and the right exists whatever
important in the court s history the court overruled precedent and turns out if the court in those cases had listened and presented with arguments in those cases adhere to precedent in brown versus board. adhere to precedent on west coast hotel and adhere to atkins and lochner and if the court had done that in those cases, the country would be a much different place. so i assume you agree with most, if not all the cases i listed there where the court overruled the precedent. so the question on stare decisis is why if i know you disagree with what i m about to say in the if. if we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn t the
to say whether they re overruling or not overruling in the sense meant there calling for special concern. now they say in those maybe i mentioned two. wait a minute, of course plessey was wrong when decided but wait a minute. they said separate but equal is a badge of infear or tee. all you have to do is open your eyes and look at the south, my friends and you will see whether it was or wasn t in 1954. and they made a similar point. they said are you going to sit here in the middle of the depression and tell me that lochner with its other cases and pure just about pure that we can run the country that way? i mention that because i want people to read those 15 pages