now to senator cornyn for his line of questioning. we ll start with stare decisis and i ve never figured out why lawyers speak in lat-in rather than in english when describing these concepts by which judges apply precedent. would you agree with me that even under an appropriate stare decisis analysis, that dred scott and pleasey versus ferguson were appropriately overruled by the supreme court? i have not engaged in the actual analysis but i think it is well established now that the cases that overruled dred scott and plessey were correctly decided. yeah, there is a means by which the courts can correct
0 whether or not they still present a threat to the united states or the world at large and i think it s six months, maybe a year. but that goes on at least on an annual basis, and if there is a determination that this person still represents a threat to the united states, they are continued to be confined. that s the way the system works. are you okay with that? as a policy matter, senator, i m not speaking to my views. my understanding is the periodic review system is an executive branch determination of whether or not they are going to continue to hold people. does that make sense to you as a way to deal with these detainees? senator, i m not in a position to speak to the policy or discretion of the executive branch regarding how they are going to handle detainees. the reason i mention is because in one of the briefs you argued the executive branch doesn t have that option. if you had had your way, the executive branch could not do periodic reviews about the danger the detai
history of this court s practice tell us the right answer is the return to the position of neutrality and not stick with those precedents in the same way that all those other cases didn t? because the view that a previous precedent is wrong has never been enough for this court to overrule. it certainly shouldn t be enough here when there is 50 years of precedent. the court has required something else. a special justification. the state doesn t come forward with any special justification and makes the same exact arguments the court already considered and rejected in its stare decisis analysis in casey and there is nothing different. there is no less need today than 30 years ago or 50 years ago for women to be able to make this fundamental decision for themselves about their bodies, lives and health. thank you. justice barrett. i want to ask you a follow-up question. the chief was asking about the
0 decisis analysis and i want to give you an opportunity to respond. the undue burden test is not at issue. that applies to regulations, not prohibitions. the state has conceded this is a prohibition. thats the title of this law is an act to prohibit abortion after 15 weeks and the only thing that is at issue in this case is the viability line. the viability line has been workable. the lower federal courts have applied it uniformly for 50 years, the fifth circuit had no difficulty striking down this law unanimously 3-0. it has been an exceedingly workable standard. if i may return to your question, a reasonable possibility standard would not be workable. it would boil down to an argument that states can prohibit a category of women from exercising their constitutional right merely because of the number of people in the category and that is not how constitutional rights work. a state would never say it could ban religious services on a wednesday evening for example because most people