In abortion case, Roberts does what no liberal Justice would do on a hot-button social-issue case: accept a wrongly decided precedent as binding. What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
-
-
Well you’re going to have overturn Roe and Casey. And these cases just put teeth into Casey’s undue burden standard. You want to turn it all back to the states, then go ahead. But everybody understood the intention behind those laws, you included.
-
There’s surely no other industry in which States have passed regulations designed to limit the number of operators in an industry. It will be interesting to see if someone uses this precedent to sue against licensing of hair braiders, for example.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a very odd thing to say. Casey explicitly reaffirmed Roe, but added language which limited it.
-
It junked the trimester framework, added a newly-minted "undue burden" standard, and tried to recenter the theoretical grounding in the Due Process clause instead of "emanations and prenumbras" of unrelated rights.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.