Hi folks! @AngryBlackLady here. Are you ready for this? I'm not sure I am.
But it's happening, so let's ride.
But it's happening, so let's ride.
Here we go!
Arguing for Mississippi is Scott Stewart.
He starts off with a lot of overwrought nonsense about how Roe "haunts this country."
Arguing for Mississippi is Scott Stewart.
He starts off with a lot of overwrought nonsense about how Roe "haunts this country."
"Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us not a judgment from just a few of us."
The issue doesn't effect EVERYONE. It effects PEOPLE CAPABLE OF BEING PREGNANT.
It doesn't affect you, Solicitor General Stewart.
The issue doesn't effect EVERYONE. It effects PEOPLE CAPABLE OF BEING PREGNANT.
It doesn't affect you, Solicitor General Stewart.
Clarence is up:
He asks, Does it make a difference constitutionally that we focus on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion.
Remember the right to privacy also encompasses the right to birth control and marriage equality.
He asks, Does it make a difference constitutionally that we focus on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion.
Remember the right to privacy also encompasses the right to birth control and marriage equality.
Stewart wants the undue burden standard to apply to previaiblity abortions... which is what I've been saying for a while.
Clarence asks if the court isn't inclined to overrule Roe and Casey, then what to do?
Stewart wants undue burden standard not confined to previability line
Clarence asks if the court isn't inclined to overrule Roe and Casey, then what to do?
Stewart wants undue burden standard not confined to previability line
Breyer wants to talk about Casey. He says that Casey upholds Roe and then also talks in depth about why we shouldn't overrule Roe... even if some folks think it was wrong.
Breyer is monologuing. He's saying that the Court needs the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision like Roe.
To subvert such precedent would damage the courts legitimacy.
he's reading from a court decision about the importance of stare decisis.
He's not happy
To subvert such precedent would damage the courts legitimacy.
he's reading from a court decision about the importance of stare decisis.
He's not happy
Sorry folks, I broke the thread. It continues here and I will continue it from the embedded thread here:
https://twitter.com/RewireNewsGroup/status/1466062178885111808?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
