Thread by @Hegemommy

Okay here we go, folks. Tune in here.

God save the United States and this honorable* Court indeed #DobbsvJackson

Roe v Wade and PP v Casey "haunts our country" Mississippi SG Scott Stewart starts his argument

Mississippi is fully going for it.

Stewart argues that abortion is a "hard issue" that should be left up to the people to decide.

Thomas starts with the questioning because of seniority and goes directly to the underlying autonomy and privacy arguments in Roe and Casey

This is kind of a big deal if you like things like birth control and marriage equality

When we tell you all they won't stop with abortion this is exactly what we mean.

They'll start with abortion and come for your birth control next

Stewart again returns to this idea of "taking it to the people"

Thomas asks if this Court DOESNT overturn Roe what does Mississippi want:

Rational basis for all abortion restrictions

That means aboition is legal in name only

Breyer up next and want to go to Casey

Notes that its a two part decision-- one that both upholds Roe and a second section talking to the Court specifically about why we DONT mess with precedent in this area

Breyer sounds very measured right now but this is him angry.

He's not asking a question he's doing what Breyer does and monologuing but the point is important so he can have the floor

Also though dude the Court IS political so this monologue is also about someone's ego atm juuuust saying

Think its important to remind folks while Breyer is still talking that Justice Thomas was confirmed in the shadow of PP v Casey

Stewart understands that Breyer is very unhappy with his entire schtick so his answer isn't combative in tone but boy oh boy is it in substance

Breyer wants to paint Stewart in the corner of fully calling for the reversal of Roe and Casey but Stewart waivers just a bit maybe because he knows how radical this ask is

Sotomayor jumps in now to remind Stewart that there has been no dispute over the viability standard in the courts-- it's been consistently reaffirmed

There's a weight in this line of questioning right now I can't quite describe. But the heaviness of the moment is tangible

If people actually believe that it's all political, how will the Court survive asks Sotomayor

hooo boy that was a moment

Sotomayor has Stewart in a corner on what the conservatives are asking the Court to do as a matter of politics. Good. Own it.

Sotomayor takes Stewart on his insistence that the science has changed around fetal pain directly and brings in the Daubert -- an evidentiary standard in criminal proceedings-- to note the science HASNT changed in a way the court would let it in, in any other type of proceeding

Roberts swoops in to save Stewart here and wants to know if Roe and Casey talked about viability

Roberts hates the viability standard and is looking for a way to undermine the strength of Casey

Sotomayor now asks if she can finish her line of inquiry and I can feel that look back to Roberts IN MY BONES

Sotomayor now going through all the ways that a dead body responds to physical stimulus to debunk fetal pain and this is some work she is doing right now

Stewart now says that viability isn't about science it's that viability isn't in the constitution

Well the constitution doesn't say we (SCOTUS) has the last word yet we do thanks to Marbury v Madison

That's called goalpost shifting in real time, folks

This is Justice Sototmayor's moment and we're all pretty lucky to be witnessing it

Stewart now invokes "history and tradition" in his argument to overturn Roe and Casey

Justice Barrett now asks if a decision in favor of MS that overturns Roe and Casey would threaten things like contraception under Griswold and Stewart says no

DO NOT BELIEVE THAT

Breyer jumps back in now to the watershed quality of Roe and Casey and wants Stewart to actually say WHY this is the case to overturn legal abortion

Sotomayor tells Stewart "I'm not sure your answer makes any sense" because all those other cases rely on substantive due process as well

She calls his argument theatre

Stewart gets Sotomayor to admit that states will try to attack marriage equality if the Court overturns Roe and Casey

She then asks how MS interest is anything other than a religious view

This is a RELIGIOUS view isn't it-- you are assuming a fetus is life-- at when?

When do you suggest we begin that life?

SHE IS DOING IT SHE IS MAKING THEM ADMIT THEY WANT FETAL PERSONHOOD

So when does the life of a woman enter the calculus, Sotomayor asks?

This is a master class by Justice Sotomayor

Stewart says a woman's interest is there the entire time and that Roe and Casey gets in the way

Alito now gets in the fray and wants to know about all the secular philosophers who believe life begins at conception

Justice Kagan jumps in now to return to Breyer's point on stare decisis and why folks need to rely on SCOTUS decisions

Kagan is hopefully going to talk about the presto chango that MS did procedurally in its case to the Court to argue about reversing Roe and Casey

Not much has changed since Roe and Casey says Kagan wrt people supporting legal abortion

Kagan notes that one thing HAS changed and that is the fact that for 50 years we have relied on legal abortion and that builds reliance interests

Stewart brushes that off as "decades of damage"

Stewart says that the lower courts are confused about abortion law and that's just a lie! They are not! They have had no problem blocking restrictions under Roe and Casey

FedSoc judges hate abortion so they want a way out. That's it.

There is no confusion here. Previability bans are unconstitutional and they all know it

Roberts now gets to the cert question and the fact that Mississippi went whole hog in between the petition and its actual brief where it FINALLY asked the Court to overturn Roe

This is a CYA question for the anti-choices

Well Roberts is fully showing himself here remember y'all I've been telling you forever that he's no friend of abortion rights ever and he'll find a way to shank Roe and Casey as soon as he can

This is also Roberts doing a CYA on his own legacy here

Justice Kagan has one more question for Stewart

How would your standard work? How would courts NOW decide what bans are constitutional and what bans are not

This is a great question because they will all be considered constitutional which is the point

Justice Kavanaugh wants to know if the Court can order the states to prohibit abortion

Stewart says yes -- this is another lie! He's also arguing for fetal personhood in between the lines so that is an abortion prohibition

This is such a bad faith take and ACB is here to follow-up

ACB wants to give Stewart a path for the Court's legitimacy in overturning Roe but there just isn't one

Julie Rikelman is up now and starts off by clearly stating that Mississippi's law is clearly unconstitutional

Says the state is forcing women to stay pregnant and give birth against their will

Then takes on the stare decisis question directly

Argues abortion bans function as the state taking control over a woman's body and therefore the liberty interests are SIGNIFICANT here

Rikelman now going through all the harm that flows from abortion bans

Thomas starts and says he just has one question: I assume you're relying on an autonomy theory, he asks

Thomas asking about enforcing child abuse laws against pregnant people pre-viability

This is explicitly a fetal personhood argument. Thomas wants to look at bodily autonomy and wants to know if there's a right to bodily autonomy to inject a substance and harm a pregnancy whooooo boy this is getting dark quick

Chief Justice Roberts is up now and wants to talk about how 15 weeks isn't that big of a deal

This sounds like the equivalent of a pat on the head from Roberts and I hate it

Roberts wants to talk about the "opportunity for choice" and why is 15 weeks not enough time

Well that bodes terrible for the 6 week ban that is currently in effect in Texas as well

Rikelman rightly notes that without a viability line states will ban abortion at any point and goes to MS 6 week ban that is currently blocked but might not stay that way

Roberts reels that back because he doesn't want to give up the game

Wild moment right now with Rikelman correcting the Chief Justice on international abortion law

ACB is up and wants to talk about safe-haven laws and this is a big talking point of the anti-choice movement. They first raised these in defending Arkansas and North Dakota 12 and 6 week bans in what feels like lifetimes ago

ACB just made a vaccine crack with regard to bodily autonomy

Rikelman says the safe haven laws don't matter because we're talking about forcing gestation which was at issue in Roe and Casey

The burdens go beyond just parenting. Pregnancy itself has unique burdens that we don't just force on folks

IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE PREGNANT

ACB is trying to cut a nonsense feminist path here I can FEEL it in my bones

Gorsuch up now with his first question and it goes to stare decisis and this feels like a lifeline to ACB

Rikelman notes that the undue burden standard only applies to abortion *regulations* not bans and its like she reads everything @AngryBlackLady writes on this case!

Gorsuch tries to get Rikelman to say that undue burden is unworkable but she doesn't take the bait

Gorsuch wants her to accept a hypothetical where the court makes undue burden to bans without a viability standard and she just wont because THAT IS ACTUALLY A REVERSAL

Oh great now it's Justice Alito

Listen, Sam, nobody wants to hear from you either

Rikleman says the state views the viability line as arbitrary because the state doesn't really care about the women's interests here

Alito wants to have a debate about when life begins and have the Court decide it

Roberts wants to go back to stare decisis and how they play out in Casey probably because he knows its a bad look for the Court to declare fetal personhood from the bench

Rikelman is prepared for viability and Casey as precedent and Roberts basically goes BAH WELL MOVING ON

Rikelman is doing an excellent job in not letting Roberts sound reasonable here. He's trying out revisionist legal history and it's just not landing the way he wants it to

WHOA BRYER JUST SAID DAMN SURE FROM THE BENCH

I'm going to need a super clip of that for my archives thank you in advance

Thomas is back up and wants again to talk about the bodily autonomy right at the core of these cases

Rikleman drills into liberty rights as the basis for alla this and it's a strong argument......if you believe women are people

Alito is here to "just ask a couple of questions" about the history of abortion in the law

Rikleman will be fully prepped for this I don't think that Alito is prepared for this -- he literally just asked for a cite this is what we call Sealioning From the Bench, kids

This is fucking obnoxious, Sam. But continue to go off

Kavanaugh is up now and wants to talk about how its really all our fault we're making the Court do something like overturn Roe right now

Why are you continually making us "pick sides" in the abortion fight, Kavanaugh wants to know

Um sir bring that up with the anti-choice numpties who insist on passing unconstitutional abortion bans against the will of the people

Kavanaugh now asking about what would have happened if the Court had adhered to precedent in Plessy v Ferguson and aren't we better when the Court overrules precedent?

Kavanaugh suggests that overturning Roe and Casey would be a "return to neutrality" on abortion

ACB up now and wants to go to viability and what it would look like for a state court to decide under state constitutional law what abortion rights law would look like

MYLANTA this is a lot

The viability line is messy but Rikleman is doing a great job defending it as a matter of judicial principle and liberty interests

Okay now SG Prelogar is up for the Biden Administration and FOR JUSTICE

Sorry I just like saying PRELOGAR FOR JUSTICE

Prelogar is coming in hot talking about the dominoes falling if this Court overturns Roe. 26 states are poised to ban abortion.

Calls this an unprecedented revocation of rights

Thomas wants Prelogar to "specifically state" what the right is-- is it liberty, is it abortion, is it privacy

Thomas says if we were talking about the 2A I'd know what it specifically is because there it's written

Prelogar notes the Court interprets the 2A all the time

Sotomayor is up here and going right to the textual arguments supporting the right to an abortion

Breyer is back up and honestly I've lost his thread but I will just note that he is very angry

Alito asks Prelogar if the Biden Administration is arguing that a case can't ever be overturned and brings up Plessy v Ferguson and now my stomach hurts

Alito is just being outright RUDE to Prelogar which I mean no surprises there but it's still a shock to hear in real time

Justice Kagan now wants to talk about reliance interests in real detail and YES JUSTICE KAGAN LETS DO THAT

Prelogar lists all the reliance interests from personal to societal

Then Sotomayor comes in and the conversation shifts to the 1 in 10 women who will have an unplanned pregnancy while on birth control

Prelogar and Roberts are going back and forth on viability and reliance and why viability is actually a WORKABLE rule

Justice Thomas is back up and once again wants to talk about applying child abuse laws to pre-viability pregnancies

The conservatives on the Court are prepared to just whip up a brand new rando standard and call it abortion law

ACB now wants to talk about reliance interests with Prelogar as well and safe haven laws -- this is having Prelogar basically stress test her arguments here

ACB is talking about the difference between terminating a pregnancy vs. terminating parental rights

Now we move to final rebuttal

Stewart for MS goes directly to safe haven laws and how they should be a substitute for the right to terminate a pregnancy

Also says contraception is basically everywhere you sluts so take it already

Finally abortion is really expensive so isn't that terrible for women HUH

Stewart now closing his argument comparing overturning Roe to overturning Plessy v Ferguson in today's most predictable turn

AND THAT'S A WRAP FOLKS!

Thanks for sticking with us through arguments. @AngryBlackLady are running over to the mic to sum up what just happened in a brand new Boom! Lawyered so STAY TUNED