Hey everyone. This morning the us supreme court struck down roe v wade, which means there is no longer a constitutional right to an abortion in this country. In light of this unconscionable decision, running a special episode of crickets legal podcast, strict scrutiny, littman kay aw. Unless a murray will break down everything, you need to know about this decision and how it affects you if you're crushed and enraged today, you're not The vast majority of americans opposed criminalizing abortion and majority will need to stand the fight in the weeks and months to come, because this battle is an over the twenty. Me too midterms will decide whether abortion remains legal in states rep. scenting millions of americans, talk more about how to win that fight on pod save america. If wanna take action right now you can go to

save america, dot, com, slash row where we have the fuck bans action plan hub in our fight back fund. With that, I leave you with the voices of a few people who went to the step. The supreme court immediately after this decision was announced to make themselves heard, followed by this very important episode of strict. Though I can't believe that are out here fighting my mom fought for so sad. It's I dunno scary dislike wake up, take You're not a fixation, though they exist even so apocalypse, but it's like not surprising and that sets out its part it's just so hard to watch people like care so much then like on the other side, just like a bunch of young white boys like running around with pro life feminist signs like as if they have I do it they're talking about or like actually care at all, it's just so sick, it's late. I hate it

I immigrated to this country from IRAN, and I feel really helpless and- and I keep saying to myself this america is this- the united states- I am the general in the abortion was illegal. I have friends, use code hangers ends in here stuff in bath tubs too This is a disgrace I am pretty scared, especially like all my friends are going off to college in kansas, arkansas and all those places where I feel like they don't they're. Not we save if something happens to them and they need an abortion. So I'm scared and pissed right now. I knew this was coming, but the feeling of the state telling women that they have no rights- and it is just the beginning- if we don't stop it. So I am furious. Sick and I am so determined to wake people up across this-

I wanted to come off the streets and not let the staff you need to get your ass in the streets now not a day to let off steam, but again and again, like the women, didn't colombia, america, where they decriminalize abortion. We dig it out caught by legal abortion across this point. Now the women are missing an alibi, taxes to be forced to have children, is unconscionable. You have to poor, first, this decision now please forward. It's no joke. When I argued man hardest thing is to get the ladies blackness they're going to have last work,

the elegantly. With unmistakable clarity. She said I asked no vapor for my sex. All I asked her about brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Welcome back to strict scrutiny. Your pod cast about even know how to describe the supreme court. The one that was just yesterday favourably citing dread. Scott verses sandford that supreme court and honestly, I can't even make a joke right now. I can. I invite you to try. There are ten, but they keep citing dred scott,

there are ten, but they just took away. My rides denied me legal person had so we. this day was coming, but the fact that we need it was coming, doesn't actually make it any easier, but it's here and we do need to come work through what it means and what comes next, I guess like ourself care is doing that together and also with our listeners. So let's do it. So, where your house, who now officially possess fear or constitutional rights than we did, Yesterday. I melissa murray on cultural and I'm leah, littman, so the it that is here that key was describing, of course, is the supreme court's opinion in Dobbs versus jackson, women's health organisation, justice. Samuel, Alito, strict scrutiny, fate for at retained, his mature

ready to overrule roe, vs wade and planned parenthood. Vs casey the decisions recognizing a constitutional right to decide to have an abortion, Maybe we can start out with what a leaders majority refuse to acknowledge, namely the consequences. This decision will have on women's lives. The joint descent by justices. I again and so to my or did manage to centre. This is no consolation that the defendant, is well done, but it is worth starting their just in thinking about where we are, and we imagined descent was authored by three justices briar. In answer to my, or so it's jointly author and identify a single author that is quite right and you know, there's kind of especial force when the justices speak with one voice like this, the three and descend now parts of it, I think, are pretty clearly identifiable as kagan as so to my or as

higher, but they did right separately. They joined their voices and this really powerful descent, actually so powerful. We because we have now read the whole thing that we would just actually read some passages from it. First, just the effect of the decision. That leah was alluding to the descent rights. Today's decision strips women of agency over what even the majority agrees as a contested incontestable moral issue, it forces her to carry out the states, will whatever the circumstances and whenever the harm it will wreak on her and her family. It takes her liberty. After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had the descent went further. They noted that were ever the exact scope of the coming laws. One result of today's decision is certain the curtailment of women's rights and their status as free and equal citizens, and this

obviously a nod to justice Ginsburg their departed colleague, who is the most stalwart defender of abortion rights on the court. They were to say that a state can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder birth into what one forest may be a nightmare. The joint descent also highlighted some of the specific consequences of complete and total abortion bans. Given that a lot of these bans dont make exceptions for cases, rape or incest or where there isn't really any question and that the feed us isn't compatible with life. So the joy descent rights under those laws. A woman will have to bear her rapists, child or a young girl, her fathers child. No,

or if doing so, will destroy her life so too. After today's ruling, some states may compel women to carry to term a feed us with severe physical anomalies shore. the die. There is also no question that this decision and which allows states to curtail abortion access, will affect access to care for miscarriages witches the same set of procedures that is used for abortions in texas. There are also already problems accessing treatment for ectopic pregnancies, which are not viable pregnancies and threaten the life and health of pregnant person. This decision also has immediate consequences for abortion care, for example, plan parenthood in wisconsin. How

even before this decision announced that they had stopped scheduling appointments after today, anticipating this decision and even as we are recording now, appointments are being cancelled in states that have trigger laws, law, was set to ban abortion in the event that row and casey were overruled. Ok, we should probably breakdown how the majority reached its result by looking, at least briefly at the reasoning, the majority, reasoning is really similar to what was in the leaked draft opinion that we broke down at some length when it was first leaked. The opinion retains all of the really really objectionable star we highlighted in our emergency episode. It retains the reference to safe haven laws, as if those laws and other developments society have somehow solved sex discrimination and pregnancy discrimination and therefore we

no longer need if they ever needed at all control over their reproductive live. There is the real peak toledo invocation of justice, Ginsburg criticisms of, says weighed, and there is the elevation of the legal test to determine rights are fundamental and therefore protected by the constitution, if they're not explicitly listed in the constitution as basically requiring that those rights be deeply rooted in history, and tradition. One of the reasons why all of this is concerning- and we have previously noted this is because you can easily transplant all of that logic to an appeal and that overrules a set of other rights of heart and homes over, for example. This logic applies with equal force to marriage, equality to the right to contraception, the right of parents to raise their children in the manner of their choosing and as its noted until the latter part of the time

century there was no support in american law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion note, state constitutional provision had recognise such a right. Yes, That is true for all of these other things. So if row is a constitutional pasta sea, because it is not deeply rooted in history and tradition, while buckler for same sex, marriage, contraception and everything else, and just thomas also hit this tune, and so we all get to him eventually. But I just wanted to highlight that, like this there's no stopping point four. Thus, no and once again, even though this opinion purported to claim some sort of methodological high ground using a principled task that is based in traditional with them. Just like you know, yesterday's in in brew and tried to claim some sort of methodological high ground with original is of the opinion is just a complete methodological design,

stir and so reviewing about many of the flaws in the court's nods. U history tradition, an original is I'm so, for example, you know this kenya, the majority opinion in dobbs rely is on pre rat occasion history before the constitution was ratified it back to english common law. As the joint descent points out, you know it goes as far back as the thirteenth parentheses, the thirteenth exclamation mark century, and then it cites the court's own slip opinion in brew and that claimed historical evidence that long predated. Rather, commission may not illuminates the scope of a constitutional right, because bruin had taken this goal. The locks approach to history. It can't be too early, it can't be too late. You know it just has to be

the right amount of history and so on and so forth, and then said to end the majority opinion in Dobbs. The court relies on laws enacted after the rat. invocation of the fourteenth amendment in eighteen, hundreds, you know an the nineteen hundreds and Yesterday in bruin they claimed posts, ratification, in adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with. original meaning, obviously cannot overcome or alter that text, and I have to say the descents, explicit attack on these methodological deficiencies and hypocrisy is of the majority is exact. But we were calling for when or lauding justice briar four star to do in his bruin descend, which is not to play footsie with a method of constitute, interpretation original was on which the liberals on the court have done from time to time, where that method, would bind us to this,

story in which women, black people, other people of color algae bt, q, people, minority, religious adherents, you name it these people had any rights at any of the moment in history, where, according to majority constant regional meaning is forged, and so, if that were constitutional, meaning comes from, none of us, are ever gonna get any benefit from mining this kind of historical record, if that's gonna, buy does today and the principled objection both to the method kind of writ large and then to sort of how idiosyncratic and selective the. Vacation of history even on its own terms, is, I think, was an important part of the descent both in highlighting, I think what is so wrong as a method with what the majority has done, but also, hopefully getting to educate the public. About how wrong it is to sort of suggested. This is how constitutional interpretation must be done.

They not only call out the inconsistency in the application of quote unquote original as on, but there also really I think clear, although I think we're probably to be sharper in doing this, about the inconsistent invocation of federalism by the conservatives on the court now really. This opinion, by a host of other opinions in one of the things that the cabinet current raises is that this is sort of a neutral settlement will get to this in more detail, but this simply returns to the states the authority to decide this for themselves through the process of democratic deliberation, that sort of classic federalism I really think that the dissenters here could have made more of the fact that, just yesterday, this very same what kind of blue federalism out of the water by allowing the court majority to decide for the states how they were going to deal with this. Similarly vexed and fractious issue of gun control, and so there is a kind of select

an itinerant commitment to these conservative principles- I do it when it suits them and they abandon them. it doesn't need those. This was pointed out with a regional as on, but I think they could have gone even further. This is what the descent had to say about the consequences of the majority is methodology and requiring rights to be deeply rooted in history and tradition. The joint descent wrote one them when he says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification parenthesis, except that we may also check it against the dark ages. It consigns women to second class said in shape, the majority again is trying to assess the scope of women's rights today by looking to a time when women couldn't vote when there were still covered regimes denying women legal person hood, and that is their method

even if it was a method that made any sense in the context of gun regulation, which I am not, heard to concede that it remotely does, it just seems insane to suggest that there is no dispute that for most history. Women were formally and functionally second class citizens our laws. So to suggest that those legal regimes then bind us today from the perspective of what the constitution means and protects. You seem so profoundly misguided so another hallmark of this final opinion that is consistent with the weak dry opinion is the effort to till the soil of eugenics until it bears some craggy fruit, so footnote forty one, which was also in the draft opinion, appears here, and it notes that other amis briefs present humans about the motives of proponents of liberal access to abortion, they note that some such

murders, have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the african american population. So here we are getting this action between abortion itself in the fact that there are disproportionate rates of abortion among african american woman. There is no discussion of the reasons why this group might be more klein, determinator pregnancy like, for example, very high rates of maternal mortality, and uneven educational and employment prospects, but why let that get in the way of a good night of it then goes on to site. My favorite clarence Thomas concurrence, sandbox versus plan parenthood of Indiana were justice. Thomas makes that attempt to link the history of abortion to the history of birth control and margaret singer and the eugenics movement, I'm all for the purpose. I think

making clear that there is a racist and racial ice connection between abortion and the prospect of eugenic termination of pregnancy and the court ends with four? our part. We do not question the motives of either those who have supported or those who have opposed laws restricting abortions, because we're neutral, congenial respecter of alternative viewpoints, but no This is entirely gratuitous like this does not have to be In this opinion, if the logic of this opinion is that role and casey are constitutional, apostasy is because they are not explicit mc constitution and are not deeply rooted in tradition. You don't need this, so why is this here, Is this just a nod to justice thomas, or does this doing other work? So frankly, it's a footnote like this. That real you just- makes me inclined to discount their statements elsewhere in the

priority opinion that nothing in the majority opinion should be taken to call into question the court's. Other fundamental rights decision ends like decisions protecting the right to access contraception. Decisions protecting marriage equality, because it's not correct that they are not questioning the motives of people who have supported those who abuse access to abortion, I mean justice. Thomas has question their motives right I did it oral argument. This is just you come no word from the last sentence questions their motives that associates itself with the question with questioning those motive. So the whole thing is bad bad faith. It's not even that it's bad faith in terms of like we're, not questioning motives. We are questioning motives like if the arctic man that there is some sort of eugenic link between Margaret singer and the nineteen twenties campaign to root out certain populations, its perhaps more forceful in the context of birth control, because that is in fact, what

singer- was spearheading shouldn't care about abortion. Jean actually did not like abortion, but she was very much about expanding access to birth control. So I mean, if you are a proponent of this view, that you can overrule past presidents, because there He says, as we saw in ramos in twenty nineteen, I think the argument applies with greater force to contraception than it does to abortion, and maybe that's why this is here: yeah, okay, so we're taking through all of the most degree. Just part of the majority opinion It seemed this kind of premature crowd. Sourcing of some of the contents of the opinion might have the effect of her being, a leader sort of roll back in some places does not seem to have happened virtually at all, The other thing has he's always right. I hate grimacer outside tell him. Now again, it seems so naive that we were like well he's gonna have the benefit of all of the critical commentary and he can strengthen his opinion accordingly, like he, some

I thought it was perfect, as is, and so didn't change. Very at all, so, among the other things that he didn't change were extremely thin. Two paragraphs on reliance interests, calling them sort of emotional end intangible, as opposed to the most concrete kind of airline, just like people literally make decisions about with an what to study and human to marry. You know against the backdrop of understanding of an ability to access abortion, but none of that seemed to resonate at all with justice Alito. The opinion also retains the that abortion providers and their lawyers basically need the court do this by claiming their no daylight between. ruling row and the chief justice his position, which we will get to in a minute that basically would have upheld the missis. The law without overruling ruin, casey outright

majority also doesn't touch what were extremely thin: two paragraphs on reliance interests and the fact that people have structured. There lies around the idea that they can control when an whether to have a child just on idea of SAM Alito dismiss In all of the criticism of his majority opinion, I'm having with visual in my mind of him staring at himself, the mirror and saying you're, perfect you're beautiful Linda, eventually stir it away very openly my welding guys, Ok, well, the unfair. There are others that are applicable to member that the one of shock or he's like like just brushing off the criticism. That's yes, the lido yeah pounding down those energy drinks being like this is what I've trained for any of these work.

All gives you wings, also makes you delusion all so another thing that he kept in his majority opinion was retaining. You know the legal they entered from the weak draft opinion that court should use when they determine whether abortion restrictions are constitutional. Legal standard is rational, they serve you. It is the most deferential standard of review under which courts can basically hypothesize possible justifications for a law states. Don't need to prove that the law actually at and says a legitimate interest and, most importantly, I think the majority retains the claim that a state's legitimate interests include respect for and preserve.

Of prenatal life at all stages of development and under that logic, complete abortion bands would be constitutional and it's not clear whether that standard would require states to adopt me for exceptions in cases where abortion might be necessary to say if the wife or health of the mother, the descent characterises the legal standard. This way the court's majority, says that, from the very moment of fertilisation, a woman has no rights to speak of the fund. Opinion. Also, I'm retain some. Arguably bad faith claims about the political process, though it notes that we, on both sides of the abortion issue, may seek to effect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting and running for office

run for something ladys, I'm sorry, I just like it like the idea of a new just as the lido encouraging women to run for office as he finishes. Women are not without electoral or political power. I disagree with that, but I think it's remarkably bad faith to suggest that a fundamental liberty that you have withdrawn and is now something that women need to fight for in the political process. I mean like that. It's a whole idea, of having to petition the majority to be understood as a full person and that's the party I do think the only answer here going forward is to work in the political process and to vote and to be very active in organizing. On the ground, but this idea that this guy, is the one like hey, ladies, you should just run for school board. I mean it's also wrong complete, bad faith, given, as you said previously melissa, the court has made the political process less accountable.

HU, the will of voters. The court has green light, ed voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering that allows politicians to stay in power even when a majority of voters vote them out. It has allowed states and is poised to allow them even more to dilute the voting power of racial minorities. You know the very group that will bear more. The brunt of this decision. So yes, of course, where you can vote and this issue, will you shut up? Will you shut us? Yes, you should vote, but to say This is all going to be fine, because your preferences will just be registered at the ballot box vastly oversimplify things again, given what this court has done to our denmark see what this court in samara little personally right, barnevik, of course, yes of an elite opinion, that's just the most recent of this line of cases, but it's not like a well functioning, responsive political, us at the state and local level in the court is significantly reduced

support for some of the reasons. Why, and so, just like don't worry democracy will sorted out is officially indefensible claim for him to make that's. Why he's making a k I will say there is some slight, the tone down language in the draft opinion. Just the lido no longer says there- is zero and nine you know regarding the historical basis for abortion, so, as were recognising personal growth. Congratulations, sir, you have ass? A drake me, that's the during a lot, but there is some historical precedent for those. I guess but ryan Fortunately, for you know, responded to that constructive analysis of his historical claims super well you said he also adds some not a great stuff as well. Illegal term, for that.

just do it you know you I employee, is trying to have a claim, I I tried to keep it clean. I am trying to keep volume down until the segment. When I would like to error my grievances against the people who I frankly hold most responsible for this, which preview listeners is not actually the five justice in the majority are like your version of the marshmallow, your deferring gratification, okay, I'd love to see it. I wish the court could do it. I wish the court could do it not capable if the yolo court, in an opinion authored by YOLO leto. So Have we said that you have used you? I will not list your leto might be. Ok, I don't know nato love that one good thing to come out daily, and that is this new coinage, but it it's your love. We are regularly real lonely, dahlia lido weakened by just barrel

this opinion does add things, then you know what. Of course it does things that were in the draft leaked opinion it in some ways underscores the idea of feudal person heard and potential. Why in writing- that the most striking feature of the descent is the absence of any serious discussion. Legitimacy of the states interest in protecting fetal life and just by repeatedly underscoring that states in the present day, as well as historic. We view we feel it says, as here beings- and you know, beings with life is really paving the way for research, divorce abortion laws and the possibility of the jurisprudence of feudal person had right so having been a protective, a life interest and then protective all constitutional rights rights that must be respected right. It does feel like it's just a couple of steps to getting there, although this opinion certainly doesn't say that explicitly. Okay, so that's the Alito,

majority opinion there are also several concurrence is, and they really range, and so maybe we should start with what I think is the most important concurrence witches the justice thomas concurrence, which is kind of war boy will heed horrible and the rain is imaginably, terrible. Imagine of a hole through its arguing about this is why I feel like they were tunas nightmare. I showed you they were. This concur in europe to options for this concurrence. One was, let's go. Fetal purse who'd now and the second option was the one we got so the one we got was remember that carried off the majority. Opinion just said about how cases like griswold, which protects right to access contraception and lawrence, which prohibits it's from criminalizing same sex, sexual intimacy or overgrew fell, which says the constitution protects, are right to say sex. Marriage. Remember how a lido couple pages ago told you. None of that is in jeopardy.

or at issue. In this case. That's crazy. Of course. It all is thomas said: are you sure, he's gonna, including the roma, just say I I agree with that we are not all day overwhelmingly riz walled I'm worried me now I am now we are not today. Large number. Those later does say that, but he goes on to say, if you cases. We should reconsider all of this courts substantive due process precedent. All of that looting. He less griswold lawrence and over befell although the outlying magic throughout asia, europe is our ginea, because he has some sense of self preservation and he has to go home tonight. To his mother I mean his wife, I'm he ain't any, have never discuss the future of loving and bans on interracial marriage, given that their professional lives are completely supper ass. It was this was like basically lifted out of these.

Some genius says Adam Ratura and john o youngster elegance burn boy, oh yeah. If we It took me just quickly because he says like three things: those cases are not cast into doubt. You know tat, There's not a real deriving casting doubt, but we should We consider them and then in like the next sentence, he says any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous and therefore we have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents and then use after overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions decision. So for sentences. It's doing, miley could see it all. I can see how it all comes together and then there is lip service paid to like. Well, maybe there are independent constitutional theories that would support the results in cases like these, like the privileges or immunities clause which he has long been interested in, but none of that matters. As far as I can, what's the bone he's going to lever, I mean he's always claimed that there is no based as for the due process, cause being a fond of individual rights, it should be the privileges and immunities cause slow.

Her house would like to have a word about whether that is indeed the case and slaughterhouse is the eighteen. Seventy three decision that effectively says that the privileges and immunities clause will not be a fond of individual rights, but he is that other should marking out we're goin, what's precedent to stand in the way of a good time, but the best part of this is talking about you know, we have this duty to overrule a decision that is demonstrably erroneous, as though this were a precedent that he's calling upon the precedent but he's citing is himself and all I can think that is that song by the divine all like I touch my son. I thought that's what I mean. I'm sorry. It like I had to find the silver linings too

and one of them is like justice, thomas citing himself, like he literally cited himself for all of that. His concurrence in gamble oliver mcdonald, all of it- and I remember you noting- when he's been he for first wrote in the gamble. Concurrence, I think, was that that was the first formulation of the demonstrably around cindy honey, wrangling and tiny nineteen a few short years ago- and you were just laser focused on this is going This is the language that he's going to use to kind of change the way the court. A protest are decisive and is, I think, an unknown look he's just for it running for himself and genuine very learned. Man wrote an ipad saying the liberals case for rat Cavanaugh. We are we ready to talk about you gore's that you know, I'm ready not yet another tag, it doesn't say. I really feel like I'm laser focus on justice. Thomas was, I think, like are why

I share the same dragon stirring up. Maybe I am the harry potter to his folsom or heard. Can I mean like these clashes in the sky of the two of you like this, not together through that kind of left? current an airing apart. I think its right to focus on just thomas because he spend laying these bread crumbs and see being. The direction of the court's jurisprudence? And that's now where the court is today where justice Thomas was, a few years ago, five years ago, twenty years ago, so he's totally under sold as the sort of architect of the concern illegal, move by everyone likes to talk about scalia and the lead, and the totally overlook him, for, I think a lot of different reasons, but he has really husband bees totally off the wall theories and allowed them to flee

ash among the lower federal courts with his acolytes, slash former clerk, slash current judges, and yet he shifted the overton window in ways. I dont think people give him credit for bad. I see where he's going that Thomas concurrence came after the elite majority opinion insisted that they were not questioning griswold lawrence and oh burger fouled, so the majority right. We have stated unequivocally that quote nothing This opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. We have also explore and why that is so. Rights regarding contraception and same sex relationships are inherently different, on the right to abortion, because the latter uniquely involves potential life just like a few beats on as you know, as we noted in our opinion, not

opinion. I wish, as we know, did in are episode analyzing the draft leaked opinion. This is like the least satisfying legal analysis or answer you could give, because in some ways it just review that the majority is doing a free, wheeling interests, balancing and policy making. You know this, isn't a text waller historical difference between these different rights is just too much where it is claimed that The normative values differ in these cases, and so the only question as well. How does this majority view those other right and what do they think they get away with politically like? Where do they think the conserved illegal movement wants to go and the decidedly picks up on it? But like some very strong dumbledore energy, so they note and no should be confident that this majorities done with its work. The right road and casey recognised does not stand alone. there. The mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, us all

additional constitutional rights are under threat. one or the other. The descent Oh highlights the Thomas concurrence in particular. The part that we were just talking about in saying look the first problem with the majorities account. That is its insistence, that nothing else is in jeopardy, comes from justice. Thomas's concurrence makes clear. He is not with the programme, that's what they say. That's very rapid early that wrote in the: u s, reports that clarence Thomas is now growing again. Yes, Lastly- and this is also a guessing because again, there is no authoring. Speculators are different paragraph, but I would stake anything on Kagan's hand had now with a program autographed jeffrey every hour, so to continue the taken part of of the joint descent.

Says in saying that nothing in today's opinion cast out on non abortion precedents. Justice Thomas explains: he means only that they are not at issue today and then the joint assent goes on to say, nor does it even but just to take the majority at its word assume, the majority is sincere and sang for whatever reason I did it will home. I disagree like disciplinary. It is sincere for whatever reason they will go far and no further scout's honor right also literally in the opinion. Still, the future significance of today's opinion will be decided in the future, The law often has a way of evolving, so there not remotely confident in these assurances from the majority that this case is not gonna, be extended very quickly to other domains, and this, I think,

yes, you know the question that I wanted to turn to, which is like there are people saying different things about the directions this court will go. You know whether this court will in fact allow states to undermine access to contraception or criminalize certain forms of contraception, whether the court will allow states to undermine marriage, equality or rights to same sex, sexual intimacy- and you know it at a point in your life. There are questions about who you are going to listen to whose voices your goal, to elevate- and I guess I just want to humbly fucking- suggest- that humbly belonging suggestor, dearer Maybe the people. You should be listening to maybe the people, you choose elevate shouldn't be the wines who told you now To worry and in fact, to support the nominations of three of the justices-

in the majority justice, neil gorse, ich brett, Cavanaugh and amy coney- bear because I am sick and fucking tired of seeing me catch ya'll on every single fucking press outlet after he introduced mule goro such as confirmation hearings and wrote in the new york times the liberals case for new course, its or a cue amar doing this for breath, Cavanaugh or no a fellow men doing this for justice beer, I mean the reason why drives me. Mad is because there is this, like me, and thinking that you get always acca wade's em, like great things when used. These left things like when I this court, the yolo court or when I say, brett cabin I gonna, be a liberals nightmare on the supreme court and you know Maybe there is some difference in like cultural power versus political power that doesnt by,

any institutional credibility or political authority eddie and said we keep giving the platforms and the air time to the people that let us here and there before warning about this are constantly being minimize like being hysterical and not doing serious analysis when they were right and I just wish people would like step back and realize like who who said this was coming. I am not saying that these people they need to be cancelled or like forever at their heads in shame, but like at a minimum. I would want to see some public acknowledgement that they feel like they, air right and admission that I was wrong. I shouldn't have done that and yeah like john just that.

Actually thought you were going to talk about the acute Lamar podcast, where he basically called out you and steve for saying that there is more to come from. Annie any he very very when he call when he called the peace that I co with steve poop. Yes, that that battle quote yeah the point you make it is actually, I think, an important one. you make in this moment where we're thinking a decision that severely restricts the rights that women enjoy, because a theme that you have not lighted, although you might intuit at listener from what we are saying. Is we listen when certain men talk and we minimize when women objects and say other things, and we started this podcast, because we fucking tired of hearing. So many men tell us about the courts and not tell us about things actually matter to us, like the people, who are deeply deeply impacted by the work that the court did like. The sort of news

a studied both sides now kind of commentary commentary we wanted wanted. Actually here what the hell's gonna happen on the ground for people, that's why we started this podcast, but you know we ve been called hysteria. Call we ve been told to shut up. Someone told me like I need to go cook. My husband did her. Instead of being I've been aligned to Josh, I am, I am absolutely we were right. We were fucking, cosette, is, and we said this in twenty nineteen people thought we were bad shit crazy, and here we are twenty twenty two, and I take no pleasure in being right about this. I mean this is devastating, but damn it can you just I will listen to us occasionally. so one one big takeaway here is: if you are in a position of filling like television slots or up ed page slots, with analysis of this opinion means and what abodes for the future, not just leo but also the eleven, but ever but of other women mark exclusively, but women, but people who, from the beginning kind of understood how

grave the danger that much of american constitutional jurisprudence and society as we know it, was in based on the cheap composition of the court from very early on and those are the voices that really need to be elevated right now, hashtag, not all women, though I dont want to you, know, minimize women's voices and how amy chew it was quick to point out that Brett cavanaugh, an excellent meant her to women and that her daughter would be looking for him. You need a book her bus or I will that was worth waiting for earlier. You feel better, you know, No that's a thing like that. I now feel better like her. I feel worse, sprite cause like now rightly. This is not going to be good for me, but I still feel like it has to be said. I feel like I have been in constant kamikaze mode since two thousand sixteen, and I just like a kind of wish that, like other people, I would like a jack some things it's also worth noting for,

out of the time that we were saying. There's like we were all saying it, but I want to predict what will we note for a lot of the time that we were saying this leah was on ten years, would actually was incredibly brave and possibly not without consequence that she was saying this so proper huey for doing that, I'm I'm sorry that you know it turned out. We were right about everything we're going to be right about all of the rest of it but on. I hope people understand how much of a rescue took and are grateful for your voice during what was the lead up to the annihilation and now it's here, ok so on. This has been such a positive vote. I feel like were giving women credit talking about this opinion were finding silver linings. We were well, maybe going on, suffer lining. Why Thankfully we could loading like the catharsis. My yes overload, our deck. Someone did the idea that, like the last couple of episodes, have been real downers and were like,

that's not really on us right, shorter Try way ring, I'm blame sound like we just work here. China ring some. Shards of hope? Out of this, one short of hope might be highlighting the range of other voices who could speak credit we on this question and I hope that those who are in charge of booking verve news whatever like really take us firstly like maybe now is not the time here from the mountains. So maybe in the spirit of renewing to elevate the right voices will read a little bit more from the dissent in the case. So one thing but I think we have really touched on explicitly that the descent highlights is just how much this is really about power. Out about law are much more about power. Then it is about law so Maybe she just like bree in some of these passages from the descent. So the descent says

were not reason is a new currency of this court's decision making and they are quoting what was justice, thurgood marshals last descent on the supreme court on quote that cheryl and Eiffel had previously flagged the descent. Also describes the change as a radical. It says it makes radical change too easy and too fast, based on nothing more than the new views of new judges. The majority, again still quoting the dissent, has overruled rowan you for one and only one reason, because it has always despise them, and now it has the votes to discard them. The majority, thereby substitutes are ruled by judges. for the rule of law and to end on a really strong note, the dissenters say today, the proclivities of individuals rule the court departs from its obligation to face fully and impartially apply the law we do set so not respectfully just dissenting This is all vibes, no law, so I think the fact

closing of the joint assembly is also worth, highlighting so the joint descend quotes at length from be controlled, plurality, opinion and plan parenthood, verses, casey, relied on the doctrine of story to say, says: respect for precedent to not overrule row versus weighed, and after quoting from that, the joint descent says. The justices. Wrote those words oconnor kennedy and suitor. They were judges of wisdom. would not have one any contest for the kind of ideological purity some court watchers want justices to delay, But if there were awards for justices who left this court better than they found it and who, for that reason, left this country better and the of law stronger sign those justices up.

he knew that the legitimacy of the court is earned over time. They also would have recognised that it can be destroyed much more quickly. They worked hard to avert that outcome in casey the american public. They thought should never conclude that its content. No protections hung by a thread that a new majority adhering to a new doctrinal school could, by dint of numbers alone, expand their rights. It is hard. No, it is impossible to conclude that anything else has happened here, one but once said that it is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed. So much for all of us, in our time on this court. That has never been more true than today, an overruling row and casey. This court betrays its guiding principles and we should say that the one of us is justice. air in a peace that he wrote about brown on an inn in twenty twenty two, the final,

paragraphs is short and just reads with sorrow for this court, but more for the many millions of american women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection. We descent it's a very powerful writing and there are a couple of other writings that we should at least briefly mention before we ramp. One is that the chief justice we talked at length about the Thomas concurrence, the chief justice, also concurred the extent of the day hence reference to. It is literally one sentence which I think broadcasts how irrelevant the descent believes, and I think that the centre right about this, the chief justice is separate. Writing is so the descent rights. We believe that the chief justice, Opinion is wrong to, but no one should think that there is not a large difference between upholding a fifteen ban on the grounds he does and allowing states to prohibit abortion from the time of conception, so Oh yeah he's wrong, but no one should think There's, not a large difference like what this extreme,

turbo charge. Majority has done is absolutely radical. Even the chief seems to recognise that, but the chief is wrong to it's kind of like it's nice. You tried right I mean about its interim. It could have tried to make much nicer with him and there is clearly no appetite and no interest for doing that, and though I actually to descend, is sort of right about the most effective way to kind of broadcast irrelevant of the separate roberts writing by just like having this one parent medical descriptive mention of it a little just because he cannot help himself right. He has to take these swipes birds whose vote he doesn't need, and who again is

something pretty relevant, but a leader has to go after him, so he criticizes the roberts concurrence in a bunch of different places in one placing the concurrence is most fundamental defect is its failure to offer any principled basis for its approach, which I have to say that sentence, and just the lido kind of nastiness, with respect to the roberts concurrence did make me wonder. How can we talk about this previously, but did records or thomas assign disappear into a leader like Robert was voting to reverse to uphold the mississippi law? So I think robbers did have the power sign it and made the choice to assign it to a lido of the other possibility. Is that thomas did, but I think under ordinary rules it would have been a robert's assignment to make and he chose to give it to elena or you think he was not in the majority initially and then he just was lying okay. This is gonna help. Anyway. Let me just like I'm not gonna, hit my wagon to these losers,

I tried to write, try and do it. I he tried to write what he thought that all of them he assigned myself. The majority am- and I guess I get mig- maybe they vote. They cast two separate votes, one with respect to the mississippi law and one with respect to overruling roe, and if you know the assignment was made on the basis of both and not just one of those votes really don't know I did he eats we could work, or is this his penance tether right for june medical Why would you right at all if what that's what he's worried about? Why wouldn't you just then go along with the alito approach? Why things they mean this to me reads like the concurrent says in bruin yesterday that the one that the chief justice join that cover, wrote where it mean they're, basically trying to say like ok, ladys, don't go to hysterical. It's not a big deal, it's actually very narrow. I believe that we could have made it explicitly narrow, but you don't have to worry because it actually is narrow it. It's only there's just returns it to the states and then he, I think, he's in a fit of peak, and he has to include some.

There's like there was another way to go. You all didn't want to go there with me, but just to be clear, this dust John, isn't as a maximum list, as you would have it. I little robber does even saying that other using I'm offering a non max most route, but I think the inference you draw from the alternative that robert sketches is that it actually is a really maximum must approach the Alito has taken and also- how could you let it any other way I mean I just. I think he wanted this sad. He wanted people to know that there was another way and that you don't have to read this in the way thomas and a leader I mean like, notably, we don't get anything from core search or beret. So maybe this decision is for that now may be the one about the have not concurrence what we should talk about. Yes, it justice, Cavanaugh loretta concurrence, it's like somehow even worse than I thought a cavenaugh concurrence in this case would be. You know at one point he's too

ass. You like, I probably be cool with like a federal ban on abortion, so he writes quote that issue, meaning abortion will be resolved by the born their representatives in the democratic process in the states or Congress and the descent, says mode, threatening of all no language in today's decision stops the federal government from prohibiting abortions nation wide, in fact already house, republicans or I fifteen weak abortion ban. After this ruling and MIKE pants speaking said, having been give in the second chance for life. We must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of her life is restored to the center of american law in every state in the land yeah. So the the kavanaugh concurrence super concerning he does say one thing:

dependent of that, I think pretty strong suggestion. He would be ok with a federal ban, which is what he is obviously says. All quote here, some the other abortion related legal questions raised by today's decision or not especially difficult as a constitutional matter may estate bar president of that state, from travelling to another state. In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right interstate travel, which is in Michael wait. Let, whereas that exactly- and I mean they're like the court has said there are parts of the car, no actually not explicitly hard for it. Like that, there's like out there are. There are a few different parts of the constitution that the court has said. Read together right, definitely and and says without you know just kind of briefly suggest that, of course, that right would prohibit a state from preventing women from travelling to other states to obtain abortion care and yet No, I think it's less significant in some ways, then his language seeming to broadcast of support for a future federal ban

is definitely important if that's a critical part of his general view of constitutional constraints in this domain, because right now it does look like he is the fifth vote for the elite of opinion and if he wouldn't be will to go along with an opinion upholding a state prohibition on interstate? They travelled that a significant from the perspective of the numbers on the court okay, so he saying this today in, like dear really expect him to hold firm and fast. this particular its categorical, and that he would have to work pretty hard to walk back. So I think it would present a real obstacle. or you can walk anything back. It's like he could appear before the Senate judiciary committee and say that he thought row was settled precedent and then wait, I'm sorry of course, but also the lisbon was ending, there'll be theirs there. There wasn't. There wasn't briefing on that issue in this case, and you know it was like

majority and bruin said they are confined to the historical record as presented by the parties which gives them substantial. We will run to basically say I dont think the briefing was satisfied three on that issue in a prior case inside so have to respect that prior case, and here right, like that issue hasn't been briefed, absolutely If you wanted to protect himself from, I think pretty obvious accusations that he is just a hack and on prince, I think he should have cabins more hit us I stress that not before us, but my staying right to try to broadcast for, like some good pr. His receptive, to a right to travel claimed, but he says it quite categorically, so I think he's making it much harder, at least for himself to reverse course, of course, that's possible, but I think will be difficult in addition to expressing his unadulterated support for the implied right to travel, Cavanaugh, also reiterate his bro philosophy and

does so in a way that will be enshrined forever and the? U s report. So here's what he has to say in my judge. on the issue of abortion. The constitution is neither pro life nor pro choice. The constitution is neutral, and this court, likewise, must be scrupulously neutral. The court today properly he the constitutional principle of judicial neutrality and returns the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process. I want that on a sweatshirt the constitution is neither her choice nor pro life We're gonna wait when new its brow life row like a car or land is brutalize. It also barometer inside yeah so borough choices for browse for sure. Definitely bro choice actually yeah I like that, I spur life classic classes.

Move from scratch s. Ok, we will have a title. day to bring up that. Let's turn that from the beginning, we said that in two thousand and nineteen screwed us screw us. I assume our corporate overlords would be fun. The term we haven't. We have. It gets old lying so we've gotten some reactions Joe mansion said. I trusted justice gorsuch such injustice cavanaugh when they testified under oath that they believed rovers wade saddled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability of the ruling, has provided for two innovations of americans. I try it has said he loved me, the greatest power senator has is to issue statements to the press since definitely true or they could tweet them

ray power as well that I like, important, senator Susan Collins also had some things to say and if you will recall, senator Susan Collins was sort of the senator interest during their cavanaugh nominations. If she had this to say- This decision is inconsistent with what justices, as gore such ann Cavanaugh, set in their testimony and their meetings with me, or they both were insistent on the importance of supporting longstanding precedents that the country has relied upon. She too has been taken in and Yeah surprising, innocently, rising fashion troubled by this the attorney general merit garland, for whom this must have been a difficult day, because had things gone differently, his vote and not neo gorsuch's would have been well. None of this would have been the way was it all, and many many things would have been very different, but of course, not

for he is the attorney general. While noting that overturning row means eliminating a fundamental right also were turned the focus too medication, abortion and included. In his statement, a quote, the fda has approved the use of the medication mfa. Pristine states may not ban mister preston based on disagreement with the FDA expert judgment about safety and efficacy, so seem to be broadcasting an aggressive strategy of federal, preemption, federal arguments in favour of federal preemption of any state law that seeks to obstruct access to medication. Abortion approved by the FDA, safe, effective again only for early aboard. it does not present a real option for women who discover their pregnant later than ten weeks have detected. Please that are incompatible with life after ten weeks, but for many many women who would like to elect abortion access to medication, abortion, actually, really

it's a development, that's a hugely significant one. In the decades since roe was decided, and I think it will be an important source of potential federal response to the decision, which is to facilitate access and to guard against state efforts to impede access to medication, abortion. So I'm glad Ireland highlighted that in his statement, but it's worth putting a line under this to make clear that this is one of issues where voting and maintaining control of the administrative state is really going to be important rights. mean if there is a change in the administration. The FDA pray it is around road map of redstone- is not going to be the same as it is now like. This is one of places where, if you want to preserve, this as a safe haven. T you really do need to exercise some political well here and in a way you have in that the Senate has been unwilling to kind of codified a right to an abortion

and I wonder if there is like any chance of finding a filibuster proof majority to codify right to contraception right like put that bill on the floor and see if republic, are willing to go along with it and if they're, not right, that's a pretty big tell about, we might be going next on, and you know just thinking about timing. Releasing dogs day after you release bruin, and this is the first full term that this court has been together. The first and it's just quite of rocks too, to do this and we probably should have taken the hint gotten. The clue when a majority of the court's cited dread scott and used its reasoning to interpret the constitution really working our way back to the pre thirteenth mehmet universe. But it is where we are right. the joint descent links all of this to texas sba, which I think we ought

I laid earlier this term, this court signalled that mississippi stratagem would succeed because taxes as one of the fistful of states to have recently banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, it noted that this flagrantly and additional restriction had in it and unprecedented scheme to evade judicial scrutiny. That was just a certain my oars dissenting and whole women's health versus jackson, and she noted that I've justices essentially ceded to that very cynical maneuver allowing texas to defy the court's constitutional rulings, essentially nullifying row and casey ahead of schedule in the nation. Second are just stayed, and now it's worth knowing that the other shoe has dropped, courtesy of that same six person majority. They have essentially done what they ve telegraphed. They would do earlier by allowing sba to go into effect in now

when you see what happens throughout much of the country and, of course, people are wondering like what to do now. What can be done on previous episodes? We have highlighted the importance of contributing to abortion funds as well, as you know, getting involved in upcoming elections, and those things are are necessary, but they are not sufficient. You know, I think it's important to understand that

His decision is the culmination of a decades long plan. You know that was pushed along with help from you know, Leonard LEO and at meese, who had such a hand and organizing and coordinating the federal society, and it is going to take decades just like their work to it in order to change the world. We are now living it, and you know it's not just going to the polls that is important, but movement building and like organizing, now that there are structures in place. You know with like candidates who can win elections and then, when elections in the future, so that their networks

as lawyers to fill state and local governments and federal governments and get judicial appointments and and that there are think tanks right supporting you know all of these goals and- and I also just think it's a fact that, like the people who got us here by saying right, we didn't have anything to worry about, or we should like trust in like these institutions. I am just kind of skeptical that they are going to be the ones to get us out of it. we're recording just a couple of hours after the opinion was issued so that it's friday and their rallies happening in new york city tonight, I am sure elsewhere, both tonight and throughout the weekend. So, if you know getting near your people and making your voice heard is one kind of short term way to respond like there will definitely be outlets. For that. I'm was alluding, of course, to voting to voting I as biden-

when he gave a public statement a couple of hours ago. You know he said rose on the ballot. I think we should just say: abortion is on the ballot. Red row is now on the ballot and, I'm sure that's helpful, but it is not just on the ballot in the sense of the congressional mid term. Elections like it is as important and may be more important to focus on the degree to which questions of abortion, other fundamental rights are on the ballot in terms of the state races not just for being elected office in munich, state, executive and legit branches, but state courts. There are a number of state courts that are now in the balance: in the next year in terms of pivotal seats. Coming open on kansas, for example, has a constitutional amendment that would overturn a state supreme court decision that found that the state bill of rights protected a right to abortion. So voting and again up and down the ballot and not just for office, but on balance, questions is absolutely critical november and a lot of places, but there are elections this summer and

in the early fall, so all of them are really critical right now I want to square that I think earlier. I guess nonetheless, week or so I think I said something to the press about in a when this decision finally drops you can either cry or you can vote, and I got some blow back I see people who we are engaged on, but who you know doubt whether voting is going to be consequential here and I'm just like I. I don't know that we have any other ways. I mean we kind of have to build a movement in much the same way. The conservative legal movement orchestrated this and assiduously husband did it over a number of years, but we to vote in the meantime, I know it sounds incredibly. Passe, but you have to Out there like get out the boat people, who don't typically vote need to get out, especially for the mid term elections that sea sort of odd dip in voter participation, and it's not just these steel actions, but also the local elections, like you know, who is the prosecutor in your jurisdiction,

is going to be enormously important because that individual have wide discretion to determine based on high some of these laws are written whether or not they are going to prosecute and who they're going to prosecute and for why so again, soon de Jeez state secretary of state because of the whole question of the independent state legislature, doctrine and then I'll, these questions like they're, all in Secondly, link leah has said this before and I know it sounds like the oldest trick in the book, but we do have to actually vote I mean we can see that offer a day or two months will our self alot of better off the floor of care? Is china too? I'm ready to go by any black women have been ready for this for a long time. You ve been saying this for a long time and we ve been saying that these issues can be silos like the impositions on the right to vote, have rebel facts, and this is one. those are facts. So I'm here and I'm ready and let's go fuck shut up

Strict scrutiny as a crooked media, production, toasted and executive produced by leah, litman, Melissa, Murray and me catch are produced and did my Melanie Raoul audio engineering by kyle sakhalin, music by eddie cooper production, support from Michael Martinez, sandy gerard and resource did Joseph from Amelia, monteith and summer. Intern supports nootka candor chanter.