In case you missed the abortion argument, here’s about how it went
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
What a great day for a light oral argument yesterday was! All nine of the Supreme Court justices were there, including both the Georgetown Prep graduate who has been accused of sexual assault and the Georgetown Prep graduate who hasn’t! The court’s consideration of Mississippi’s law banning abortions after 15 weeks — which severely undermines Roe v. Wade — went approximately as follows:
MISSISSIPPI SOLICITOR GENERAL SCOTT STEWART: A specter is haunting the United States! And that specter is Roe v. Wade! It was generated out of nowhere, is totally unconnected to any bodily-rights-having tradition in this country, and needs to be destroyed! We believe life begins at conception and ends when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a last appeal from someone who has been incorrectly placed on death row. You know, before Trump changed the composition of the court, I might have had to argue something different, but this feels like all I really need to argue now.
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?
STEWART: I would not call it a stench. I would call it a perfume, or, more neutrally, an aroma.
SOTOMAYOR: If people actually believe that it’s all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?
STEWART: The court seems fit and vigorous! I bet someone like Neil M. Gorsuch could take down a water buffalo if he needed to!
SOTOMAYOR: Do you have any basis for arguing that the line of viability has changed medically? Any expert who suggests that, at all?
STEWART: There have been huge strides in this area, and I have applied the most important type of medical test to this: I, a man, have thought prayerfully about the Constitution.
SOTOMAYOR: When does the life of a women and putting her at risk come into the calculus?
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: What about stare decisis?
STEWART: What about it?
JUSTICE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH: Whoa whoa whoa, let me get one thing straight. Are you saying that the court can outlaw abortion?
STEWART: Nope, all we are saying is that states should be able to outlaw abortion.
KAVANAUGH: Well, that’s, like, totally different, right? That’s, like, not even a rights issue at all. I bet we can leave for lunch early!
JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Is it really infringing on the autonomy of women if we only force them to carry a fetus to term for nine months, during which time many of them probably will not suffer life-altering medical complications or die? They can drop the baby off afterwards, assuming that they have not suffered medical complications or died, which, again, most of them probably won’t do.
STEWART: Yeah, that sounds right to me! Childbirth is very little to ask of a person, although fortunately we are not asking it of people, just of wombs floating in a void.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS JR.: Maybe we could do this in a case-by-case way focusing on the undue burden standard instead of overturning Roe immediately in what seems like a transparently partisan move?
JUSTICE SAMUEL A. ALITO JR.: It’s not a transparently partisan move if you feel in your heart that it is right.
JULIE RIKELMAN, LITIGATION DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: We think the Supreme Court was right when it found, twice, that states were bound to respect women’s right not to undergo pregnancy and childbirth, and we think it’s sort of strange that this case presents no new facts yet wants to overturn a right people across the country have counted on for decades now.
JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: Where are you seeing this right you say Roe protects, exactly? I am following along in my copy of the Constitution and I’m not seeing any mention of bodily autonomy, or, indeed, any mention of rights for anyone other than men?
RIKELMAN: We had decided — I thought — that women are included in “people” now.
THOMAS: Hmm. Much to consider.
BARRETT: Bodily autonomy aside (as it seems like the state wants it to be with its little vaccine mandates), doesn’t adoption solve all of this?
RIKELMAN: It does not and also yikes.
KAVANAUGH: Whoa, just thought of something! Doesn’t the Supreme Court sometimes overturn precedents? It was good when we overturned Brown v. Board! And I’ve got a list of other times it was also good! So it seems like maybe overturning precedents is good, actually! Seems like maybe the fear of overturning a precedent shouldn’t hold us back at all! Seems like maybe saying something is “settled law” is just another way of saying it’s something that ought to be overturned if we feel like it!
[Somewhere, Susan Collins feels either very surprised or not surprised at all.]
JUSTICE STEPHEN G. BREYER: I would like to say some words about the Supreme Court as an American institution. I’m sure this will be moving to people, because all of us believe it and are not just saying it for cover at partisan events while we rub our hands gleefully at the prospect of making overtly political decisions.
ALITO: [Rubbing hands gleefully.] Absolutely.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
It's what I also heard, foggy brain and buzzing ears notwithstanding.
What about the part where Alito admitted that he was actually the product of an abortion?
"Burn the abortion doctor! Burn her!"
"Why? What did she ever do to you?"
"I was aborted once! It was her that did it!"
"What? You were aborted?"
"Well... I got better...".
Was the golden image of the fetus on the polished alter of alabaster introduced as evidence? If not, why?