they have all like marberry versus madison been discerned from the structure of the constitution. why do we now say that somehow roe and casey are so unusual that they must be overturned? justice sotomayor, i would emphasize two things. when you are going beyond the constitution, this court has looked closely to they didn t go beyond the constitution is what i m saying. they did not deduce those from the structure of the constitution. they pointed to the 14th amendment and reasoned that privacy in roe and autonomy and similar values in casey led to a right in abortion. that s not how the court traditionally does that. the court looks as history and decision. here those reject the proposition that states cannot legislate on abortion before, after viability and all throughout. so it is history and tradition,
states cannot legislate comprehensively on abortion before, after viability and throughout. it s history and tradition, your honor. and i would also add, your honor, that those decisions, a great many of them draw not just draw from text, history, and tradition, but they draw often clear lines, very workable, have not led to the many negative stare decisis factors that we identify here. general go ahead. go ahead. would a decision in your favor call any of the questions any of the cases that justice sotomayor is identifying into question? no, your honor. i think for a couple of reasons. first of all, the vast run of those cases and some mentioned from time to time, griswald, lawrence, o bergfeld. these are cases that draw clear rules, can t ban contraception, can t ban intimate romantic relationships between consenting
0 say. really? yeah. they used to be more polite. i have to say, the court over the last few years has gotten a bit more sharp in their questioning. and even sometimes to each other, and making digs at each other. that s an unfortunate trend. but i think for the most part, you ll hear a respectful discussion of the issues between the advocates and the court. maybe the most important thing to think about is when the justices are asking a question, they re not necessarily wanting to hear the answer from the advocate. they re making a point to one of the other justices. and so you as the advocate have to just understand, you re guiding a conversation more than like giving a speech and saying why you re right. and that s where that listening skill is so important. can you figure out what the justice is trying to say to her or his colleagues. so it s not only the question, but also what may be behind the question, vis-a-vis another magistrate. exactly. it s 3-d chess. that s very